Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — CABINET OFFICE

The Minister was asked—

E-envoy

Mr. Derek Wyatt: When the appointment of the e-envoy will be announced. [144195]

The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Mr. Ian McCartney): The selection is being overseen by the civil service commissioners and is being made in accordance with the civil service commissioners' rules for recruitment to the civil service.
The selection panel consists of the first civil service commissioner, Baroness Prashar; Mavis McDonald, the permanent secretary to the Cabinet Office; Nick Montagu, chairman of the Board of Inland Revenue; and Iain Anderson, the former adviser to tilt Prime Minister on millennium bug issues. Interviews were completed with candidates earlier this week.
Once the selection panel has reached a decision, the appointment has to be approved by die Prime Minister on the recommendation of the head of the home civil service, with the agreement of myself and my hon. Friend the Minister for Small Business and E-Commerce. The formal announcement of the appointment will be placed in the House of Commons Library as soon as the selection process has been completed.

Mr. Wyatt: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Does he share my view that, with the publication of the communications White Paper—which might lead to a new Department after the next election—we need an internet Minister first, rather than a new e-envoy?

Mr. McCartney: I did not quite catch the gist of my hon. Friend's question, but I think that it was about the Government's current and future proposals for the management of Government policy in respect of e-Government issues. My hon. Friend the Minister for Small Business and E-Commerce is responsible for co-ordinating the whole e-agenda. I am responsible for the e-Government agenda and the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, my hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon (Mr. Wills), is responsible

for access to skills. Of course, we also have a champion for the e-agenda at Cabinet level: my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.

Mr. Michael Fabricant: Although I am sure that the whole House will be thrilled at the knowledge that a new e-envoy is shortly to be found, why did the Government state on the resignation of Alex Allan back in October, when it had been known for some time that he would resign in October, that a replacement would be found in December? It now seems that a replacement will not be found much before February.

Mr. McCartney: There has been absolutely no delay and an announcement will be made soon. Not only has there been no delay, but we immediately appointed an acting e-envoy, someone with considerable experience, who has continued the work. As a consequence of that, we are able to announce today that we are ahead of our target for the number of services already on the internet. More than 40 per cent. are already on it and we are ahead of delivering our target in 2005.

Mr. Ken Purchase: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the most important aspect of e-commerce is the effect that it has on opportunities for British exporters? Therefore, alongside the services that we have for e-commerce and e-business generally, we need to create more opportunities for those setting up websites and entering e-commerce to learn basic business skills, so that they can offer the support to their clients and customers overseas that good business men always try to offer.

Mr. McCartney: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is why my hon. Friend the Minister for Small Business and E-Commerce and my colleagues at the Department for Education and Employment have put a huge multimillion pound project in place to give help, advice and training not only to individuals, but to small businesses in particular. The programme will deliver for the United Kingdom the best environment in Europe for doing e-business, both here and abroad.

Mr. Crispin Blunt: I, along with all other hon. Members, have received a letter from the Lord Chancellor's Department giving details of how an extra £54 million will be spent in the Court Service. However, the expenditure of that money is subject to the approval of the e-envoy. Why?

Mr. McCartney: We announced in the review of information technology projects—99.9 per cent. of them were mistakes left by the previous Government—that we would put in place systems to ensure that, where Departments roll out programmes and technology, those programmes fit a system so that, when they are rolled out, they will be successful and have a rigorous business plan attached to them. The proposals that we set out in the document on improving information technology have been signed up to by all Ministers and all Departments. That will ensure that, in future, IT programmes in any Department will be of high quality. When they go online, they will work successfully.

Next Steps Agencies

Dr. Alan Whitehead: What plans she has to review the attachment of next steps agencies to Government Departments. [144197]

The Minister for the Cabinet Office (Marjorie Mowlam): Next steps agencies are subject to regular reviews, usually at five-yearly intervals. These examine all status options, including the positioning of the agency under review within a given Department.

Dr. Whitehead: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does she accept that the positioning of the next steps agencies within particular Departments owed more to their origin within those Departments than to their function? Does she agree that, after 12 years of their working, a review of functions would be appropriate, with a view to ensuring that the agencies are appropriately placed?

Marjorie Mowlam: I take my hon. Friend's point, which I can assure him has not been ignored, because it is one that the Department has spent some time considering. As I said in answer to his first question, we review the agencies every five years, and they are also under constant yearly review, and the issue that he raised is included in that process. We have not changed the host Department of any agency, but we have much more cross-cutting work between Departments and agencies so that their public service agreements are shared and their production is maximised.

Rev. Martin Smyth: One understands why the next steps agencies were set up, but is the Minister convinced that there is proper scrutiny of those agencies by Parliament?

Marjorie Mowlam: From where I sit, yes. We scrutinise well, and if Parliament does not scrutinise the agencies, that is Parliament's responsibility, not mine. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we do not let the agencies go unscrutinised. They perform an important function in the delivery of programmes, and I assure him that if there is inefficiency or ineffectiveness, we will not let it grow.

Mr. Gerald Kaufman: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the Conservative Government's creation of the next steps agencies—organisations that dispose of countless billions of pounds of public money and have intimate dealings with many millions of our fellow citizens—was one of that Government's most disgraceful innovations, as it destroyed genuine parliamentary accountability? Does she agree that no more of those agencies should be created and that the reincorporation of their functions within Departments for which Ministers are responsible to this House will be as significant in advancing democracy as the previous Government's action was in destroying it?

Marjorie Mowlam: I hear what my right hon. Friend is saying. I assure him that we do not let next steps agencies act as free agents. There is constant review and

monitoring of their actions. I must add that there are more ways to achieve accountability, transparency and good delivery of public services than through Departments.

Mr. John Bercow: Since the attachment of the next steps agencies to Departments, how much money have they saved through market testing, and how does that figure compare with the savings achieved by the Departments themselves?

Marjorie Mowlam: I am afraid that I do not have those figures at my fingertips, but I shall certainly let the hon. Gentleman have them.

E-services

Mr. John Healey: If she will make a statement on progress towards meeting the 2005 targets for making Government information and services available electronically. [144198]

The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Mr. Ian McCartney): Yesterday, I laid before the House the latest report on progress towards the target that by 2005 all Government service; should be online. The report shows that for the whole of central Government, 42 per cent. of those services are now online, which is well in excess of the interim target of having 25 per cent. of Government services online by 2002.
A leading example of the progress that we are making is the development of the UK online citizen portal, which offers a new way to access all UK Government information and services available online. For example, a "life events" area of the portal takes situations important to many people, such as having a baby or moving house, and pulls together packages of information and services in one convenient place.

Mr. Healey: Dots my hon. Friend agree that wider provision of e-information and e-services by Government is only one side of the coin, and that the other is having more people gaining e-access? Does he recognise the potential of digital television, and will he and his colleagues ensure that the Government put it to the test in technology pilots?

Mr. McCartney: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Digital television will indeed play a major part in access to Government services, both for information and for doing business. The technology has only recently become commercially available, but the Government are working with the industry. We have already issued interim framework policy guidelines for digital television, and there are several pilot projects in the Department for Education and Employment and the Department of Health. Over time, digital television will allow people to do business with local and central Government from their own home.

Mr. Andrew Lansley: I am interested in the Minister's comments about digital television, because according to the Government's own report, of the 521 Government services projected to be delivered in 2005, only six will be delivered through interactive television. Chasing Government targets is like searching for a mirage, because the structure of the reports


has entirely changed; so will he help me? A year ago, the Government's progress report said that at the end of 1999 capability for electronic service delivery was 36 per cent.; now, the Government say that 42 per cent. has been achieved, which represents a peat triumph in the intervening year. Will he explain that apparent lack of progress and tell us how much take-up has increased on last year's figure of 17 per cent? [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. There is far too much conversation in the Chamber. The House must come to order before the Minister replies.

Mr. McCartney: Those comments are a bit rich coming from a member of a party whose Government did nothing about e-commerce or e-technology during their 18 years in office. In my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Healey), I stated quite clearly that we are ahead of the schedule. We have advanced the target from 2008 to 2005 and extended the 2002 target from 25 per cent. to 42 per cent. In addition, in the first few weeks after the introduction of UK Online, 5 million citizens used it to access services—the equivalent of the population of Scotland. That is not a bad start, given that we were at zero when we took over from the previous Government.

Mr. Lansley: The decibel level rises the more the Minister is in trouble. Let me ask him to consider quality. The Inland Revenue has introduced online self-assessment tax returns, and I estimate that there are about 12,000 visitors a day to the website, but only 26,000 returns have been filed in the past six months. What proportion of those who access the Inland Revenue website successfully file a return electronically—what is the take-up?

Mr. McCartney: The hon. Gentleman tries to use a fog of statistics. Let us be absolutely clear. For example, MAFF—

Mr. John Bercow: Spit it out!

Mr. McCartney: The hon. Gentleman might want to spit, but I am a rather more sophisticated individual than he is and I like to put my brain in gear before using my mouth.
To return to the question asked by the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley), on 25 January the Government gateway goes live for business registration and enrolment for online services from Customs and Excise and for applications through the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for common agricultural policy aid schemes, in addition to Inland Revenue end-of-year transactions. In mid-March, we go live for business transactions for those Departments, with Customs and Excise following by the end of March and the Inland Revenue in April. Bit by bit, we are implementing a rolling programme for the introduction of services, which is something that the previous Government did not even attempt.

Mr. Lansley: I am grateful to the Minister, but he has not answered a single question. Let me ask him once more: if take-up was 17 per cent. a year ago, what is it now? If capability was 36 per cent a year ago, why is it only 42 per cent. now? What about cost? There is no

re-engineering of government going on in all that, only an extension of capability to internet or digital television. How much will the programme cost, and what benefit in terms of savings will accrue?

Mr. McCartney: The hon. Gentleman has changed tack again. The fact is that we are ahead of target in terms of the use of the internet and putting transactions in place; we are ahead of target in access to information and in sorting out the problems created by the previous Government. We have a multimillion-pound programme of investment in modernising the public sector and Government. The Conservatives' £16 billion cuts in public services would undermine what we are doing to modernise Government. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I say again to hon. Members that the House is far too noisy, which is unfair to those who have asked a question and want to hear the answer.

Ombudsman Review

Tony Wright: When she expects to introduce legislation to implement the recommendations of the ombudsman review. [144200]

The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr. Graham Stringer): This major review has elicited 250 responses. The Government are looking in great detail at these responses and the evaluation of them will be announced before Easter.

Tony Wright: I am grateful for that answer. My hon. Friend will know that we had the ombudsman review because ombudsmen came to the Government and said, "Our work is being impeded, particularly where the boundaries cross health and social services, for example, because we cannot run a seamless, integrated service." The Government are to be congratulated on initiating the review, but will they now give a commitment to bringing forward early legislation to implement it?

Mr. Stringer: As my hon. Friend knows, I cannot pre-empt decisions on the next legislative programme. I agree that an extremely important review is taking place. The ombudsmen told us that they were not working as efficiently and effectively as they could. We accepted that, and that is why the review is taking place.
On the other side of the equation are those who use the ombudsman service. We must ensure that the service is accessible, and we shall do that by taking into account many of the comments that have been made. It is worth bringing it to the House's attention that some of those comments are asking for further reviews in areas that are currently considered out of bounds by the ombudsmen. It is part of our modernisation programme to get the ombudsman service right, and it is important that we do so, rather than hurrying the process.

Mr. Paul Tyler: I shall raise an issue that relates both to the Cabinet Office's responsibility for the future of the ombudsmen and to the co-ordination of rural policy. Is the Minister aware that there is real resentment and frustration among farmers in England and Wales at the fact that there is no effective external and independent arbiter of maladministration and


mismanagement of many issues within the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, while there is one in Scotland? How soon will the Minister's proposals for introducing a more effective tribunal be available for us to see? Will they cover issues other than the integrated administration and control system concerns?

Mr. Stringer: The hon. Gentleman is extending the review to areas that are not covered by the question. It is clear that people in rural areas as well as in urban areas benefit from the service of the ombudsmen. Improvements in the efficiency and effectiveness of that service will help people in rural areas.

Departmental Staff Numbers

Mr. Christopher Chope: How many people are employed in her Department; and if she will make a statement on the equivalent figure in April 1997. [144202]

The Minister for the Cabinet Office (Marjorie Mowlam): The number of people employed in my Department, including agencies, on 1 April 2000 was 2,040 and on 1 April 1997, 2,623: a difference of 583.

Mr. Chope: I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for that response. Given the overall figures for the civil service, there has been an increase of about 15,000 in one year. Does she not think it rather a perverse sense of priorities on the part of the Government that they find it easy to recruit new bureaucrats to deal with red tape and the propaganda machine, including special advisers, while at the same time reducing the number of policemen? Surely it would be better for the Government to comply with the people's sense of priorities—more police and fewer bureaucrats.

Marjorie Mowlam: Let us start with the facts. Spending on central administration is down since 1997. The numbers of civil servants are down by 8,000 since 1997. I accept that there has been a small increase this year, and that relates to programmes that we want to put in place, such as pensions increases. We want to deal with fraud, the implementation of child support reforms and immigration cases. That is why there has been an increase in the numbers of civil servants over the past year.
As the Neill committee said, there is no objection to special advisers. I readily acknowledge that their numbers have increased. That is because of the volume of legislation on which we are working. We have been open and transparent. We have published what they are paid. We have a code, we have guidelines for civil servants and special advisers, and we have a model contract. Nothing has been hidden from the public and the information is in the public domain. On the first point, I believe that the hon. Gentleman has his facts wrong. Secondly, what we are doing is perfectly clear.

Mr. John McFall: My right hon. Friend will be aware that last year the Public Accounts Committee, in its report "Government on the Web", said that the Cabinet Office did not know how many websites

there were or whether they conformed to good practice. Have my right hon. Friend's officials dealt positively with that criticism?

Marjorie Mowlam: Yes, I can assure my hon. Friend that they have.

Dr. Julian Lewis: One group of civil servants where there has clearly been a huge increase are the political civil servants, the special advisers. Will the right hon. Lady give an undertaking to match the Conservative pledge to reduce the number of special advisers to their far more modest level when the Government took office in 1997?

Marjorie Mowlam: I partly answered that question in reply to the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope). No, we will not. We have never denied that we want special advisers to assist us in the volume of legislation that we are putting through. The hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. If he does not want the civil service to be politicised, special advisers perform an important role. As the head of the civil service, Sir Richard Wilson, said, to suggest that 73 special advisers will swamp 3,000 high-level civil servants is a myth.

Government Regulation

Ms Ruth Kelly: What discussions she has had with business people on the impact of Government regulation. [144203]

The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr. Graham Stringer): My hon. Friends and I have regular meetings with all sections of business. Yesterday, I visited the constituency of the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) and talked to representatives of its chamber of commerce and a number of businesses. Last week, I attended a debate organised by the Social Market Foundation with the chief executive of the British Chambers of Commerce.

Ms Kelly: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government's approach to dialogue with trade unions and business, as manifested in the setting up of the Low Pay Commission, is the best way of building consensus and driving forward social change? Will my hon. Friend consider setting up a similar body to drive through and monitor the recommendations that will follow the consultation on the Government's Green Paper on working parents, so that we can further improve the lot of workers?

Mr. Stringer: My hon. Friend makes a good point. There is no doubt that the Low Pay Commission has been successful in improving the pay and working conditions of many British people. I hear what my hon. Friend says and we shall consider that point.

Mr. Graham Brady: How many of the 100,000 manufacturing jobs that have


been lost in the past 12 months does the Minister ascribe to the increase in the regulatory burden under this Government?

Mr. Stringer: As the hon. Gentleman knows, that figure is considerably less than the number of jobs lost every year in the industrial sector under the Conservative Government. If the hon. Gentleman cares to consider Britain's regulatory performance as against that of comparable countries, he can look to the report of The Economist Intelligence Unit, which found that, taking into account 70 different factors, among comparable countries Britain was the best placed for foreign investment.

Mr. Peter L. Pike: Will my hon. Friend confirm that, with the regulatory reform legislation going through the other place, it is the Government's objective to get rid of unnecessary and unhelpful regulation and move increasingly to good and positive regulation which will help British industry and people?

Mr. Stringer: My hon. Friend is right. We shall not repeat some of the simplistic and asinine comments made by the previous Administration who, for example, said that they would burn vast amounts of red tape, yet proceeded to introduce 13 times as many petty regulations as existed before. As my hon. Friend knows, the Regulatory Reform Bill seeks to remove unnecessary red tape, particularly that resulting from overlapping regulatory regimes. We have put before Parliament a number of examples of how that legislation will improve regulations.

Government Secure Intranet

Mr. Richard Allan: What the impact is on the Government secure intranet of the implementation of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. [144204]

The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr. Graham Stringer): The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act has had a minor impact on the Government secure intranet. The lawful business practice regulations—the Telecommunications (Lawful Business Practice) (Interception of Communications) Regulations 2000—authorise interception of communications in certain cases that would otherwise be prohibited by section 1 of the Act. Where such cases apply to the Government secure intranet, obligations under relevant laws will, of course, be met.

Mr. Allan: This is obviously a complex technical issue. If the Minister does not have the facts at his fingertips, will he undertake to write to me about certain aspects of the implementation of the Act? First, what is the Government's policy on retaining data on the GSI to comply with requests from the law enforcement agencies? Secondly, what is their policy on intercepting e-mails from their employees in the Departments that use the GSI? Finally, what are their estimates of the costs to the GSI of complying with requests from the law enforcement agencies?

Mr. Stringer: As the hon. Gentleman said, those are highly detailed and technical questions, and I am happy to write to him on those issues.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

Mr. Phil Sawford: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 17 January.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

Mr. Sawford: Among my right hon. Friend's bedtime reading last night, did he happen to notice an article in the Kettering Evening Telegraph reporting a 9.5 per cent. cut in crime in Northamptonshire last year? Will he join me in congratulating Northamptonshire police and the wider community on that tremendous achievement?

The Prime Minister: Unaccountably, the Kettering Evening Telegraph was not among my bedtime reading. However, I know officers and civilian staff of the Northamptonshire police and would like to congratulate them on achieving a 9.5 per cent. cut in crime. Of course, we know that there are still real problems with both violent crime and police recruitment, which need to be addressed. However, I am delighted to tell my hon. Friend that, as a result of the extra investment that the Government are putting in over the next three years, there will be an additional 90 recruits for the police service in Northamptonshire.

Mr. William Hague: The Prime Minister has already commented on the deeply disturbing case that has come to attention this week involving baby twins being bought and sold over the internet. It cannot be right for children to be sold to the highest bidder. The Prime Minister will obviously want to co-operate as much as possible with other countries to prevent any more such cases and to ensure that laws against baby trading are as tight as possible.
Does the Prime Minister agree that one way of reducing the chances of further such cases arising is to press ahead with much-needed reform of adoption law in this country? Will he accept our assurance, first given in debate on the Queen's Speech, that he would have the full support of the Opposition if he were to introduce legislation in this Session? Will he now undertake to do that?

The Prime Minister: I entirely agree with what the right hon. Gentleman said about that particular case. I think that everyone feels that it is deplorable that children are traded in that way. Adoption should always be about putting the interests of the child first.
We are committed to making adoption easier, and we published a White Paper on that shortly before Christmas. We shall press ahead, and intend to introduce legislation on it in this Session. I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's support, and I hope that perhaps I can come back to him later with details of how and when we can press ahead with that legislation.
In addition, it may be of interest to the House to know that the Adoption (Intercountry Aspects) Act 1999 will be brought into force later this year. That legislation was passed by the House some time ago and will set in place proper rules and standards to be applied in any case involving intercountry adoption. This is obviously a serious and difficult situation, but it is right that we should legislate on adoption in this country as soon as possible, and then get regulations on the statute book that deal with intercountry adoption.

Mr. Hague: I acknowledge and welcome what the Prime Minister has said, especially about introducing legislation in this Session. The White Paper to which he referred received a warm welcome from the Opposition. If, for any reason, it proves impossible for the Government to introduce their own legislation in the coming weeks, will they consider the vehicle provided by the Adoption Bill promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman)? The Bill has its First Reading today, has had the support of hon. Members from all parties and could thereby contain the proposals of Government and Opposition.

The Prime Minister: I shall certainly consider the right hon. Gentleman's suggestions about that Bill. I am told, however, that some of the measures that it contains do not require legislation, so we can press ahead with them in any event if they are the right measures to introduce.
It is important to realise that adoption concerns many families in this country very deeply. There is now general acceptance that we must clear away some of the bureaucratic obstacles and that we can do that while ensuring that proper standards and procedures are in place so that deeply regrettable events such as the trading of children, to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, are prohibited.

Mr. Gwyn Prosser: Does my right hon. Friend agree that we owe a deep debt of gratitude to the miners? Is he aware of the huge backlog of claims in the East Kent coalfield, which is often forgotten? Has he heard the sad stories of my constituents Jon Phelan, Norman Woodcock and Arthur Bailes, who are very old and sick and feel let down by the current slow and complex process of claims assessment?

The Prime Minister: I am sure that my hon. Friend speaks for many people—not only his constituents, but people in every part of the country that has had a large mining presence, my constituency included. As he knows, the difficulty is that this is the largest personal litigation in United Kingdom history. Some 130,000 claims for respiratory disease alone have to be processed, and each one of them must be processed individually. We are trying to speed up the rate of paying out. In December, for example, £22 million of compensation was paid out. The fast-track procedures that we announced last September have resulted in the paying out of a further £74 million. It is only because of the Government that the money is being paid out at all. However, we accept our obligation to ensure that the claims are processed more quickly and

are looking urgently at doing that. It is important for people to realise that the delays are occurring because each claim must, by law, be processed individually.

Mr. Charles Kennedy: I am sure that the whole House will acknowledge that although people in rural communities may, like all the political parties, have different views about hunting, one thing on which they all agree is that they can see post offices closing, public transport disappearing and farm incomes plummeting. Will the Prime Minister acknowledge that his Administration has failed rural Britain?

The Prime Minister: No, I do not acknowledge that. Of course there is a real problem with rural post offices, which is why we are committed to putting in the investment and to working with them to ensure that they have a future. As for investment in public services, it is this Government who are putting in the investment: we are putting far more investment into rural areas than the right hon. Gentleman asked us to before the general election.

Mr. Kennedy: But only last year, the Government published an action plan for farming and followed it up with a rural White Paper, yet the post offices are disappearing, public transport is receding and farm incomes are falling. Will the Prime Minister acknowledge that, having promised rural Britain, like everyone else in the country, that things can only get better, the truth for rural Britain is that things have only got worse?

The Prime Minister: Rural post offices have been closing for many years. There are reasons for that, which we are addressing. The matter can be addressed only in the way that we are doing it, by giving the rural post offices options for the future. That is precisely what we are doing. As for public service investment, if the right hon. Gentleman looks at primary school results, investment in primary schools in rural areas, the investment now going into the national health service and the money made available specifically for police officers in rural areas, he will see that all those elements are rising and all of that investment is going in.
Whatever the Liberal Democrats say, they set out at the general election their plans and what they thought they could do if they were ever elected as a Government, but we have exceeded those proposals many times over. Of course there is still a lot to do, but it is simply incorrect to say that no investment is going into rural areas.

Mrs. Linda Gilroy: Does the Prime Minister share my anger about the whopping 43p in every hard-earned taxpayer's pound that went on the cost of rising debt and unemployment in 1997? Will he remind the House of the Government's actions to cut that waste and the way in which the 26p freed by them is being put to much better use?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right: 43p in every pound went on social security payments or debt repayments, and that sum is now down to 17p as a result of Government measures. Today, we have the lowest inflation in Europe, our interest rates are half what they were in the Conservative years, and we have cut the


national debt that the previous Government incurred. It will be interesting to note how many questions the Opposition ask on the economy in the rest of Question Time today.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: Over the past few months, the firemen and women in this country have risked their lives helping victims of flooding, not least in Cornwall in the past 24 hours. I am sure that the Prime Minister will want to join me in congratulating them on that work. Is he aware that the current funding formula for the fire service does not allow for such rescue work and that, consequently, many fire officers have had to tackle flooding problems without appropriate equipment, uniforms and clothing for those wet conditions? Is not it time that the Government changed the way in which the fire service is funded so that those fire officers can have the equipment that they need as they risk their lives on behalf of people in the circumstances that I described?

The Prime Minister: I certainly join the hon. Gentleman in congratulating firefighters and other emergency service workers on their excellent work in the past few weeks. We are reviewing the operation of the funding and the attached funding formula. However, let me make two other points.
First, we have made substantial additional sums available for flood relief in areas that have been affected by flooding. Secondly, I say to the hon. Gentleman, who is a Liberal Democrat, that there is a limit to the amount that any Government can spend on public services. I know that he and his colleagues do not accept that, but that is the reality.

Ilois People

Mr. Tam Dalyell: If he will discuss with the President of the Seychelles the return of Ibis people to the land of their ancestral graves, when he next visits the Seychelles.

The Prime Minister: I know that my hon. Friend has a long association with this subject that goes back some 30 years. Indeed, he recently secured a debate on it in Westminster Hall. Unfortunately, I have no immediate plans to visit the Seychelles. However, as he knows, a team of independent consultants is currently assessing the feasibility of resettlement of the outer islands of the territory. We await its conclusions.

Mr. Dalyell: Against the background of that hour-long Westminster Hall Adjournment debate, how about establishing an Anglo-American tribunal on compensation?

The Prime Minister: This is where the briefing runs out, so I shall have to get back to my hon. Friend on that. However, as he knows—probably better than I do—a High Court case is currently examining whether resettlement is possible. Two ex gratia payments of some £4 million were made to specific people for resettlement, most recently in 1982.
We are currently conducting feasibility studies on the possibility of resettlement. I am not aware of the Americans doing that, but I shall find out as a result of my hon. Friend's question and write to him.

Ministerial Code of Conduct

Mr. Andrew Robathan: What assessment he has made of the effectiveness of paragraph 113 of the ministerial code of conduct.

The Prime Minister: My position on the ministerial code was set out in the Government's response to the Neill committee's sixth report, which was published in July.

Mr. Robathan: The Prime Minister knows that his ministerial code is his responsibility alone. It has nothing to do with the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges. Does he recall writing the foreword to the code? It stated:
I will expect all Ministers to work within the letter and spirit of the code.
Paragraph 113, which deals specifically with trade unions, states:
Care must be taken to avoid any actual or perceived conflict of interest …
It continues:
Ministers should receive no remuneration from a union.
How does the Prime Minister reconcile that with the flat that the Deputy Prime Minister, who is responsible for transport, rents from the transport union for some £10,000 a year less than the market rate? That is a substantial benefit in kind. When will he enforce his own rules?

The Prime Minister: I do enforce our rules—and it is relevant to note that the Standards and Privileges Committee dismissed the complaint, and found it to have absolutely no substance.
As for the hon. Gentleman's unpleasant and nasty obsession with this issue, it reflects much worse on him than on the Deputy Prime Minister, whose integrity I prefer to his any day of the week.

Engagements

Siobhain McDonagh: Will the Prime Minister join me in congratulating schools in the London borough of Merton, one of the five most improved boroughs in the country in terms of school standards? Will he congratulate in particular the children and staff of Malmesbury primary school, who have achieved an improvement of 140 per cent. in the past five years? Does he agree, however, that there is still much to be done, especially in high schools? Will he give the House a commitment that a future Labour Government will concentrate on improving standards in such schools?

The Prime Minister: Funding has increased by some £450 per pupil over the past few years. In the last three years of Conservative Government, it fell by about £60.
We are now committed to providing, over the next few years, the largest investment that the country has ever seen. We know from the commitments given by the shadow Chancellor that the Conservative party is intent on cutting that investment in Britain's schools, and also on getting rid of the new deal for investment in our


schools. There will be a simple choice before the people: investment under this Government, or cuts under that party.

Mr. William Hague: When the Foreign Office Minister responsible for Government policy on missile proliferation says that he is opposed to the development of a ballistic missile defence system, is he speaking for the Government?

The Prime Minister: We have not said that we are opposed; what we have said—[Interruption.] No. We have said that until a proper proposal is before us, we will not make a detailed comment on it. That is entirely sensible, which is why the right hon. Gentleman's intervention last week was so misjudged.

Mr. Hague: The Minister responsible is the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), who said:
I don't like the idea of this programme, limited or unlimited.
The programme to which he referred was the ballistic missile defence system.
The Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament—I do not know whether the Prime Minister remembers CND, but it certainly remembers him—said:
we are currently campaigning against American plans to set up a missile defence system.
The Minister is a fully paid-up member of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament.
Will the Prime Minister make it clear that, despite being responsible for this area of policy, the Minister is not speaking for the Government?

The Prime Minister: I have made the Government's position absolutely clear is. When there is a proposal from the United States for national missile defence, we will make our declaration on that proposal. We have not yet received a proposal. It is an extremely sensitive issue, for reasons that are entirely obvious—which is why the right hon. Gentleman's blundering about does no good either to us or to our relationship with the United States.

Mr. Hague: Is it clear, then, that if the Minister says that the Government are not in favour of the idea, he is not speaking for the Government?

The Prime Minister: I have already said that we have not actually received a proposal on national missile defence. I personally said earlier, in exchanges not with the right hon. Gentleman but with others, that we entirely understand America's reasons for wishing to develop the system; but until there is a proposal, it would be rather foolish to say how we react to that proposal. All that the right hon. Gentleman is trying to do—joined by others on the Opposition Front Bench—is create mischief between ourselves and the United States. That is foolish and wrong, but fortunately it will get him nowhere.

Mr. Hague: For all that wriggling, it is still not clear whether the Minister speaks for the Government in the world, or for CND within the Government. The Prime Minister has not been able to clear that up. Will he accept

that if he makes the country's position clear now, we shall be able to reassure our ally, shape the system that will eventually be created, and take a lead in NATO?
It is not just a case of waiting to accede to requests; it is a case of making a positive statement of intent. Should not the Government now stop dithering and use this opportunity to make a clear statement that Britain will support the new Administration in the United States?

The Prime Minister: In other words, before we receive the request, we should respond to it. That is the right hon. Gentleman's latest foreign policy announcement. It is so ridiculous. It would be a good idea if he paid some attention to the words of President-elect Bush just a few days ago on 8 January. He said that it was an issue that had to be handled with very great care and he was listening to what people were saying. That is an intelligent response from our ally, the United States of America. That is precisely what we will do. When there is a detailed request, we will make our response to it. That is the intelligent way to proceed. An unintelligent and foolish way to proceed is to say that, whatever request may be made to us, we will accede to it before it is even made.

Hon. Members: More.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I call David Lammy.

Mr. David Lammy: I am sure that my right hon. Friend shares my sorrow and would wish to send his condolences to the parents of Anna Climbie. May I seek his assurance that he will scrutinise and implement the recommendations of Lord Laming's inquiry in due course?

The Prime Minister: I think that the whole House knows that it was a needless and dreadful tragedy in wholly unimaginable circumstances. This poor little girl was murdered by people who were supposed to be caring for her, but the fact is that she was let down by the system as well. The statutory inquiry that we have announced under the chairmanship of Lord Laming will get to the bottom of what went wrong. It will make a full report to us, which we will scrutinise very carefully. I am sure that we will act on the recommendations that the inquiry makes to us. It is a terrible case. Again, I am afraid, we have to try to learn the lessons of how the system let down that poor innocent and helpless child.

Mr. John Randall: Is the Prime Minister aware that Hillingdon community health council and Harrow CHC have both formally objected to the proposed closure of the world famous Harefield hospital? Is that example of independent thinking why he wants to abolish CHCs?

The Prime Minister: No, it is not. It is correct that the health authority made some proposals on the future of Harefield hospital at the end of last year. Those proposals may be subject to referral to Ministers for a decision. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that any final decision will be made in the interests of the local community.

Mr. Neil Turner: I welcome the Government's commitment to neighbourhood renewal. My local authority is in discussions with a private


developer that will lever in some £400 million of development on an integrated transport system. However, that depends on a link road to the M6, which borders the Pemberton area in my constituency, the 172nd most deprived area in the country. Will he do all he can to ensure that the Government office for the north-west, the Highways Agency and other Departments and agencies work with the local authority and the private developer to lever in the money and ensure that the scheme is an important part of redeveloping the neighbourhood and former coalfield community?

The Prime Minister: I can give my hon. Friend that undertaking. We will work with the Highways Agency, the north-west regional office and others to do our very best to get that private investment. It is all part of a series of proposals that will regenerate our inner cities. Again, it is an example of money that will be invested in some of the most deprived communities in the country. Again, it is an example of investment that we are putting in that would be taken out by the Conservative party.

Mr. Lembit Öpik: People laughed when I first raised the potential devastation that would result from tai impact between an asteroid and the earth. There is no middle way with asteroids. In the light of that and of the Government's near-earth object task force report, which confirmed every claim that I had made about the dangers and made 14 recommendations for action, will the Prime Minister consider raising the matter, with the prospect for international co-operation, at the next G8 summit?

The Prime Minister: The report of the task force on near-earth objects and asteroids was published last September, and the Government and considering it. We shall announce our response to it shortly. The Department of Trade and Industry has established a small implementation team to oversee the preparation of that response, which I am sure will be eagerly awaited on both sides of the House.

Mr. Ronnie Campbell: May I take my right hon. Friend back to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Prosser) on miners' compensation? I heard what my right hon. Friend said about the legal side of the matter, and we know that the process is rather cumbersome and long. Unfortunately, however, we have many old miners who were assessed at least two years ago but are dying before they see a penny of compensation. Will he intervene and see if we can create a fast-track process to get that money to those old miners and their widows?

The Prime Minister: The frustration that my hon. Friend expresses is absolutely right, and I share it. Indeed, some people in my own constituency are in exactly the same position. That is why, from last September, we introduced, as far as we were able, a fast-track scheme. The problem is that it is impossible—I assure him that I have looked into it myself on many occasions—entirely to short-circuit the point that I made earlier, which is that there has to be an individual assessment in each individual claim. There are literally more than 130,000 claims simply for respiratory illness. Some of those claims will

be entirely valid, but some may not be. As we are talking about paying out very large sums of taxpayers' money, it is essential that we look into the matter in detail.
I know how frustrating the process is, and we are trying to speed it up as much as possible, but there is a limit legally to what we can do. I hope that my hon. Friend is able to explain that to his constituents. I understand entirely his frustration, and I share it.

Sir Patrick Cormack: If the Prime Minister is in favour of completing the various tasks that he set himself for this Parliament, why is he not in favour of fixed-term Parliaments?

The Prime Minister: Because I share the view of many of those who have occupied this position before me that that is not the right thing.

Mr. Roger Casale: May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to plans for a new community hospital on the site of the Nelson hospital in my constituency, which will provide a focus for primary and secondary care and for the integration of health and social services? Such innovative projects are possible only because of the money that the Labour Government are putting into the health service. Would not hopes for the realisation of such important projects be dashed if the Conservatives were ever again to take power?

Mr. Andrew MacKay: You will be out.

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right in the sense both that we are putting extra investment into the health service and that Conservative Members have refused to commit themselves to matching our additional funding for social services, which are a vital part of achieving improvements in the national health service. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) keeps shouting across to my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Mr. Casale) that he will be out at the next general election, but we will just see. [Interruption.]
Let us just see. When people are given the choice, let us see whether they want increased stability under Labour, or boom and bust under the Conservatives; jobs under Labour, or unemployment under them; investment in our public services, or cuts under them. I am still waiting for an answer to my question to them on the economy.

Mr. Nicholas Soames: Will the Prime Minister clarify why he misled the audience on "Question Time" last year, when he told them that he had voted for the Foster Bill, which he had not, and that it had been lost in the House of Lords, which it had not? In view of his lamentable attendance record in the House, will he tell us how he will vote today, and why?

The Prime Minister: I have made it quite clear, and my position has not changed. I am opposed to fox hunting for the reasons that I have given on many occasions. As for what I said on "Question Time", we shall wait and see


exactly what happens in the other place. However, I think that it is absolutely certain that the will of this place will be made very clear.

Mr. Bob Russell: Does the Prime Minister agree that in this, the Year of the Volunteer, the Government should follow the excellent example of the Scottish Parliament and remove the £10 fee that volunteers for voluntary youth organisations must pay?

The Prime Minister: I suppose that that is another spending commitment on behalf of the Liberal Democrats. As a matter of fact, the Government are doing a lot for volunteering, as the hon. Gentleman knows. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced a package of measures on volunteering last week that was widely welcomed. We want to encourage people to volunteer, but Liberal Democrat Members must recognise that there comes a point when there is a limit to how much taxpayers' money one can spend. In particular, instead of telling us how much more public money they are going to spend, they must tell us how they are going to fund that public money.

Mr. Jim Fitzpatrick: The editor of the Newham Recorder, Mr. Tom Duncan, is much respected in the east end of London. In this morning's edition of the newspaper, he welcomed the launch earlier this week of the Government's neighbourhood renewal project. However, he criticised the Conservative party for its consistent failure to give leadership since the east end began to be regenerated. Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that the resources allocated to the project will be adequate to see the job finished this time?

The Prime Minister: The job will, of course, take a very long time indeed, but the resources will be put into it. Those resources are going into inner cities up and down the country for the simple reason that this Government and this political party believe in prosperity being spread to every part of our country. We also believe that no one should be shut out and excluded from our society. [Interruption.] Conservative Members can shout as much as they like, but they wrote off our country's inner cities, just as they wrote off the mining communities. This Government are bringing prosperity to those areas, so that every one of our citizens gets the chance to succeed.

Bills Presented

OUTWORKING

Mr. Richard Burden, supported by Mr. Fabian Hamilton, Angela Smith, Mr. Peter Bottomley, Ms Oona King, Mr. Paul Tyler, Mr. Nigel Griffiths, Judy Mallaber, Mr. David Amess, Mrs. Linda Gilroy, Mr. Dafydd Wigley and Mr. David Kidney presented a Bill to control the, seeking or receipt of payments for the provision of work or of information about work opportunities: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 2 February, and to be printed [Bill 11].

ROAD TRANSPORT

Mr. James Gray, supported by Mr. Andrew F. Bennett, Mr. Brian H. Donohoe, Mrs. Eleanor Laing, Mr. Tim Loughton, Mr. John MacGregor, Mr. Bill Olner, Mr. Martin Salter, the Rev. Martin Smyth and Sir George Young presented a Bill to require local authorities to take measures to safeguard motorists and pedestrians from the effects of snow and ice; to require local authorities to assess the appropriateness of speed limits; to simplify the procedure for making speed limits; to ban the use of hand-held telephones by drivers of motor vehicles; to amend the law with respect to the wearing of seat belts; and to extend the area within which mandatory travel concessions outside Greater London apply: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 9 February, and to be printed [Bill 12].

HIGH HEDGES

Mr. John M. Taylor, supported by Mr. Andrew Rowe, Mr. Jim Cunningham, Mr. Don Foster, Mr. Dafydd Wigley, Mr. William Ross, Sir David Madel, Sir Sydney Chapman, Mr. Lindsay Hoyle, Mr. Simon Burns, Mr. Andrew Hunter and Mr. Keith Simpson presented a Bill to make provision for dealing with complaints about high hedges; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 9 March, and to be printed [Bill 13].

CHRISTMAS DAY (TRADING)

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody, supported by Mr. Derek Foster, Mrs. Llin Golding, Dr. Evan Harris, Mrs. Joan Humble and Helen Jones presented a Bill to prohibit trading on Christmas Day in certain cases; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 16 March, and to be printed [Bill 14].

NATIONAL LOTTERY (AMENDMENT)

Dr. Ian Gibson, supported by Dr. Desmond Turner, Mr. Anthony D. Wright, Dr. George Turner, Mr. Bob Blizzard, Mr. David Prior, Mr. Keith Simpson, Mrs. Gillian Shephard and Mr. John MacGregor presented a Bill to allow the National Lottery Charities Board to make grants to endowment trusts as part of the endowment of such charitable organisations: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 23 March, and to be printed [Bill 15].

ADOPTION

Mrs. Caroline Spelman, supported by Mr. Julian Brazier, Mrs. Llin Golding, Mr. Frank Field, Mr. David Davis, Mr. Mark Oaten, Mr. Joe Ashton, Mr. Ian Bruce,

Dr. Peter Brand, Mr. Michael Fabricant, Sir Nicholas Lyell and Mrs. Virginia Bottomley presented a Bill to amend the law on adoption: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 30 March, and to be printed [Bill 16].

TRANSPLANT OF HUMAN ORGANS

Mr. Kenneth Clarke, supported by Mr. John Butterfill presented a Bill to amend the law on the transplant of human tissue; and for related purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 16 March, and to be printed [Bill 17].

PRIVATE DENTAL PRACTITIONERS

Ann Clwyd, supported by Angela Smith, Ms Linda Perham, Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody, Mr. Brian Sedgemore, Mr. Gordon Prentice, Mr. Paul Flynn, Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith, Dr. Peter Brand, Mr. Paul Burstow, Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours and Ms Julie Morgan presented a Bill to amend the law on the registration and regulation of private dental practitioners; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 16 March, and to be printed [Bill 18].

RAILWAYS

Mr. Eric Martlew, supported by Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody, Mr. Derek Foster, Mr. David Hinchliffe, Mr. Gerry Steinberg, Mr. Gordon Prentice, Mr. Brian Sedgemore, Mr. Michael Clapham, Mrs. Ann Cryer, Mr. Clive Efford, Mr. Michael Connarty and Mr. Ian Cawsey presented a Bill to require the Secretary of State to inquire into and make a report to Parliament on the future ownership, control and management of railway infrastructure: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 23 March, and to be printed [Bill 19].

COPYRIGHT, ETC. AND TRADE MARKS (OFFENCES AND ENFORCEMENT)

Mr. Andrew Miller, supported by Mr. Andrew Dismore, Mr. Phil Woolas, Mrs. Linda Gilroy, Mr. Tom Pendry, Mr. Stephen Pound, Mr. Eric Martlew, Gillian Merron, Mr. Phil Hope, Mr. Ivor Caplin and Maria Eagle presented a Bill to amend the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 in respect of criminal offences, search warrants, powers of seizure and orders for forfeiture; to amend the Trade Marks Act 1994 in respect of search warrants and powers of seizure; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 9 March, and to be printed [Bill 20].

VACCINATION OF CHILDREN (PARENTAL CHOICE)

Miss Julie Kirkbride, supported by Mr. David Davis, Mr. Graham Brady, Dr. Ian Gibson, Mr. Nick Harvey, Mr. Dafydd Wigley and Mr. William Thompson presented a Bill to allow parents to choose to have their child vaccinated separately against measles, mumps and rubella; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 9 February, and to be printed [Bill 21].

MISUSE OF DRUGS (AMENDMENT)

Mr. Paul Flynn, supported by Mr. Peter Bradley and Mr. Austin Mitchell presented a Bill to allow the


production, supply, possession and use of cannabis and cannabis resin for medicinal purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 2 February, and to be printed [Bill 22].

SECRET SOCIETIES (REGISTRATION OF MEMBERSHIP)

Mr. Charles Wardle, supported by Mr. Norman Baker, Sir Richard Body, Mr. Andrew Mackinlay. Mr. Brian Sedgemore and Mr. Richard Shepherd presented a Bill to require that a person elected to public office shall register with the public body to which he has been elected his membership of any secret society: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 30 March, and to be printed [Bill 23].

HUMAN FERTILISATION AND EMBRYOLOGY (DECEASED FATHERS)

Mr. Tony Clarke, supported by Mr. Joe Ashton, Mr. Peter Bottomley, Dr. Evan Harris, Mr. Ivan Henderson, Mr. Stephen Hepburn, Ms Sally Keeble, Mr. Steve McCabe, Mr. Stephen Pound, Mr. Phil Sawford, Ms Debra Shipley and Mr. Anthony D. Wright, presented a Bill to make provision about the circumstances in which, and the extent to which, a man is to be treated in law as the father of a child where the child has resulted from certain fertility treatment undertaken after the man's death; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 23 March, and to be printed [Bill 24].

ORGANIC FOOD AND FARMING TARGETS

Mr. Simon Thomas, supported by Mr. Paul Tyler, Joan Ruddock, Mr. Elfyn Llwyd, Mr. Peter Bottomley, Mr. Tony Benn, Mr. David Drew, Mr. Richard Livsey, Ms Julia Drown, Mr. Alan Simpson, Mr. Martin Caton and Mr. Colin Breed presented a Bill to make provision regarding the setting and achievement of targets for organic farming and food consumption; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 9 February, and to be printed [Bill 25].

CHILDREN'S RIGHTS COMMISSIONER

Mr. Hilton Dawson, supported by Mr. David Hinchliffe, Ms Julie Morgan, Mrs. Llin Golding, Mr. Mark Todd, Mr. David Kidney, Mr. Jonathan Shaw, Mr. Win Griffiths, Ms Debra Shipley, Mr. Vernon Coaker, Mr. George Mudie and Mr. David Drew, presented a Bill to provide for the establishment of a children' s rights commissioner to promote the rights and

interests of children in England; to make provision for the powers and duties of the commissioner; and for related purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 6 April, and to be printed [Bill 26].

EMPLOYEE CONSULTATION RIGHTS

Mr. Kelvin Hopkins, supported by Mr. Harold Best, Mr. David Chaytor, Mr. Michael Clapham, Mr. Tony Clarke, Mrs. Ann Cryer, Mr. Lindsay Hoyle, Dr. Lynne Jones, Mr. Bob Laxton, Mr. Terry Lewis, Mr. Andrew Love and Mr. Gordon Prentice, presented a Bill to require employers with more than fifty employees to consult workforce representatives on large business issues which directly affect employees; to establish a forum in which to consult about those issues; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 6 April, and to be printed [Bill 27].

PENSION ANNUITIES (AMENDMENT)

Mr. John Butterfill, supported by Mr. Frank Field, Mr. Kenneth Clarke, Mr. Malcolm Bruce, Mr. Peter Lilley, Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody, Mr. Michael Howard, Mr. John Burnett and Mr. Nick St. Aubyn, presented a Bill to amend the law relating to the purchase of annuities in respect of private and personal pensions and defined contribution pension schemes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 9 March, and to be printed [Bill 28].

CROWN EMPLOYMENT (NATIONALITY)

Mr. Roger Casale, supported by Mr. Bill Rammell, Fiona Mactaggart, Mr. Piara S. Khabra, Ms Ruth Kelly, Mr. Edward Davey, Ms Linda Perham, Miss Anne Begg, Dr. Rudi Vis, Mr. Paul Stinchcombe, Mr. Hilary Benn and Ms Tess Kingham, presented a Bill to make provision for and in connection with the removal of general restrictions as to nationality which apply to civil employment under the Crown; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 2 February, and to be printed [Bill 29].

PATIENT CONSENT FORM

Mrs. Marion Roe, supported by Mr. David Amess, Mr. Graham Brady Mr. Simon Burns and Mr. Jonathan Sayeed, presented a Bill to require health service providers to provide patients with a standard consent form; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 30 March, and to be printed [Bill 30].

Points of Order

Mr. Jim Cunningham: I wonder whether you, Mr. Speaker, could comment on a situation in which a constituent who was employed by a public body wrote a letter to his Member of Parliament, detailing the way in which he had been treated by that public body and issues that could affect the service delivery of the public body. Surely it is wrong to use the detail of a constituent's letter for the purposes of proposed disciplinary action against him. Surely it undermines the confidence of constituents in their Member of Parliament's ability to represent their interests without fear or favour.

Mr. Geoffrey Robinson: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. As my hon. Friend has explained, a distinguished surgeon in the Coventry area who is in dispute with the local health trust wrote to my hon. Friend, copying the letter to me, stating his reasons for disagreement with the health trust, in particular his natural temporary loss of confidence in the management, with whom he was in dispute. It seems that the trust has used that letter, quoting from it, in its assessment of the situation, to adduce from it why the surgeon should not be reinstated in his position. That surely cannot be acceptable to any Member of this House. We should receive letters from our constituents in confidence. We should be able to seek information and views on them and represent the interests of constituents without the correspondence, which surely is confidential, being used against their professional interests, even to the point of denying their ability to earn their living. We would be grateful for your advice, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Coventry, South (Mr. Cunningham) for letting me have notice of his point of order. It does not appear to me that the House's privileges have been infringed by what we have heard. It would not be appropriate for me to make any comment on the detailed circumstances of the case. Nevertheless, I have two general observations to make arising from it. First, I would deplore any activity, particularly if a public body were to be involved, that was intended to deter a constituent from contacting his or her Member of Parliament. Secondly, Members should always bear it in mind that the House's privileges do not, as a rule, protect constituents who write to us seeking advice and help.

Mr. Nicholas Soames: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask you, as the guardian of the rights of Back Benchers, which are increasingly few, to have a word with the Prime Minister about the way in which questions are answered? I asked the right hon. Gentleman a question today of fundamental importance about when he, to put it frankly, was less than honest in a television—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. No hon. Member is less than honest. Every hon. Member is honest. The hon. Gentleman must not say that a Member has been less than honest in the House.

Mr. Soames: The Prime Minister was wrong, and he misled a very large television audience—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not saying that the Prime Minister deliberately misled anyone in the House.

Mr. Soames: This happened on television, not in the House. The Prime Minister may accidentally have misled, but he misled.

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is unsatisfactory. No hon. Member would be misleading—perhaps misinformed, but not misleading.

Mr. Soames: That is certainly an original ruling, Mr. Speaker. [Interruption.] I intend no disrespect to the Chair. I am trying to get an answer from the Prime Minister. He said on television that he had voted in favour of the Wild Mammals (Hunting with Dogs) Bill, when, as usual, he did not even bother to vote. He also said on that television programme that the Bill was lost because the House of Lords threw it out. It never even reached the House of Lords. I must ask you what opportunity exists for hon. Members to receive honourable answers to important questions, when we are about to debate a matter that touches on the fundamental civil liberties of hundreds of thousands of ordinary people. You are the guardian of our rights.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is quite right. I am the guardian of the rules, and the rules of the House do not allow me to put words into a Minister's mouth. I am not responsible for the answers that the Prime Minister or any other hon. Member gives in the House. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman must seek to table questions or get round the Order Paper in whatever way he can.

Mr. John Hayes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek your guidance. You may be aware of the continuing fiasco of the Government's incompetent handling of teachers' performance-related pay. Last night, Madam Deputy Speaker properly deferred debate because, as a result of the Government's so-called modernisation, there was not sufficient time to consider the matter. Have you been informed by the Government when they intend to bring the matter back? The House deserves the right to debate this fully.

Mr. Speaker: The Government have not informed me, but I am sure that I will know on the day when the business comes before the House.

Dr. Howard Stoate: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In today's The Guardian, the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) is quoted as saying of the Hunting Bill:
It is absolutely vital that the legislation is as flawed and sloppy as possible.
Conservative Members are well known for producing flawed and sloppy legislation; they had 18 years in which to do so. I would like your guidance on whether a deliberate attempt to undermine the Bill reduces the authority of the House and brings it into disrepute.

Mr. Speaker: That is absolutely nothing to do with the Chair.

Mr. Tony Baldry: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Many hon. Members wish to speak in today's debate. Are you minded to impose a 10-minute limit on speeches to ensure that the maximum number of right hon. and hon. Members have the opportunity to contribute?

Mr. Speaker: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Bill will be dealt with in a Committee of the whole House. Standing Orders do not allow the Chairman of the Committee to impose a time limit.

Mr. Roger Gale: Further to the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames), Mr. Speaker. You have ruled, in accordance with custom and practice, that hon. Members do not lie or mislead the House. We all accept that, but the quid pro quo must be that where it is shown that a right hon. or hon. Member has inadvertently made a mistake, he should be asked to withdraw his statement. The Prime Minister's statement is on the record in Hansard of July last year. Has he offered to withdraw it?

Mr. Speaker: Order. Once again, I say to the hon. Member that that is a matter for the Member concerned.

Mr. Andrew Robathan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have listened to your advice, and I shall table questions relating to the answer that I received from the Prime Minister today on a matter that concerns many hon. Members on both sides of the House. If the answer that I receive to my written question does not tally with the answer that he gave me today, what am I to do?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman asks what he is to do. He will have to wait to see whether that happens.

Hunting Bill

Ordered,
That in the Order of 20th December 2000 (Hunting Bill: Programme) the following be substituted for paragraph 4—
4. The following shall not apply in respect of proceedings in Committee of the whole House—

(a) Sessional Order B (Programming Committees) made by the House on 7th November 2000, and
(b) Sessional Order D(5) (Single question on successive provisions of the Bill) made by the House on that day.—[Mr. Sutcliffe.]

Orders of the Day — Hunting Bill

Considered in Committee.

[SIR ALAN HASELHURST in the Chair]

Clause 1

HUNTING WITH DOGS: PROHIBITION

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

The Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this it will be convenient to consider the following:
Clauses 2 to 4 stand part.
Government new clause 1—Commencement (No. 2)—and amendments (a) and (b) thereto.
Government new clause 2—Commencement (No. 3)—and amendments (a) to (c) thereto.
Government new clause 3—Commencement (No. 4)—and amendments (a) and (b) thereto.
There will thus be a joint debate on the first four clauses of the Bill together with the three new clauses and associated selected amendments. The Committee will have the opportunity at 10 o'clock to vote successively on each of the three options contained in clauses 1 to 3, before dealing with the consequential matters relating to the clauses. I appeal to members of the Committee to restrain themselves in the length of their speeches, if they catch my eye. The point has been made that a great many people have a deep interest in the matter. To allow as many as possible to contribute, and to cover all shades of opinion, I hope that all hon. Members will adopt brevity as their guide.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Mike O'Brien): Clause 1 incorporates schedule 1. I hasten to add that, in speaking to the clause, I am not in any sense advocating a vote for it; I am merely recognising, as a Minister of the House, that the debate has to start somewhere. In due course, I shall move the further clauses that deal with the schedules.
It might be helpful if I say a few words about the procedural issues. I shall not advise hon. Members on how they should vote, as the Government are neutral on the question of which option to adopt. My personal views were put on record on Second Reading. I shall make a couple of procedural points so that hon. Members know how we shall proceed. I know that you, Sir Alan, have already said how you intend to deal with our proceedings.
We are currently dealing with clause 1, which introduces schedule 1 and which has been proposed by the Countryside Alliance. Similarly, clause 2 introduces schedule 2, which has been proposed by the Middle Way Group, and clause 3 introduces schedule 3, which has been proposed by Deadline 2000. When we vote, hon. Members will not be surprised to learn that they ought to vote for the schedule that they support. In addition—


this may seem a little basic, but I say it for clarity's sake—hon. Members should vote against any clause that introduces schedules that they oppose. That matters, because the fact that one of the options receives a majority will not necessarily cause the other two to fall. The procedure assumes that hon. Members will seek to have one schedule in the Bill by the end of the day. That will be the case only if hon. Members decide to allow the other two schedules to fall.

Mr. Andrew Robathan: As regards the Government's neutrality—I am sure that many of us heard the Minister on Radio 4 this morning—the Deputy Prime Minister has said:
Every time I see the Countryside Alliance's contorted faces, I redouble my determination to abolish foxhunting£
The Prime Minister has said that he would vote to abolish foxhunting. Does not that slightly compromise the Government's neutrality?

Mr. O'Brien: It does not, and I shall tell the hon. Gentleman why. The same applied when the House considered the Sunday Trading Act 1994, which was introduced by the previous Government. Distinguished Conservative Front Benchers, including the shadow Home Secretary, held their own views. Unfortunately, I suspect that she may not be allowed to speak in this debate—she is on record as saying that her view is not shared by many others in her party.
Each individual Member of the House is allowed a free vote. All parties have agreed that whips will not apply. It is for each constituency MP to determine how to represent his or her constituents. Thus my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister have expressed their views, and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has expressed his view. Likewise, the Leader of the Opposition has a view that is not shared, as we know, by the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe). Therefore, each Member will express a view, which is how it should be on a matter of conscience.

Mr. James Paice: The Minister has described the procedure. Did I understand him to suggest that, even if a majority is in favour after one of the first two votes, that will tot necessarily be the final result? If that is what he meant, how will we reach a final outcome, as two Divisions could result in majorities in favour?

Mr. O'Brien: Indeed. It is feasible, though very unlikely, that the Committee could decide to include all three schedules. Perchance, should every Member vote for all three schedules, the Bill would contain three contradictory provisions, but that is so unlikely that it will not happen. That brings me neatly to my next point, which deals with the amendments standing in the name of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.

Mr. Peter Luff: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. O'Brien: On a matter of procedure, yes.

Mr. Luff: Will the Minister confirm what he said in the debate on Second Reading? Will Members who vote

for schedule 1 only to be defeated be free to vote for schedule 2? Will Members be able to vote for two different propositions?

Mr. O'Brien: Yes. Any permutation is possible. Hon. Members who vote for schedule 1 would be free to vote for schedule 2 should schedule 1 fall. Were they so disposed, they would be free to vote for schedule 3 or, indeed, against it. The hon. Gentleman is right—hon. Members must make a decision on each vote.
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary explained the purpose behind his amendments when he opened the debate on Second Reading. The rules of the House prevent Bills with internally contradictory provisions from being introduced. That is why the Bill includes a fairly complicated commencement provision providing for the commencement of one schedule and the repeal of the other two. It is our intention that whichever option is chosen by the House should take effect a year after Royal Assent.
New clauses 1, 2 and 3, which relate to schedules 1, 2 and 3 respectively, have precisely that purpose. New clause 2, which will interest the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) and which relates to schedule 2, is slightly more complicated than the other two. It contains transitional provisions to ensure that the hunting authority would be up and running before it became unlawful to hunt without a licence. There would be a special provision in that regard. Therefore, let me make it clear that, when the relevant time comes, I shall invite the Committee to agree that the present clause 4 should be omitted. At that point, I shall move only the new clause relating to whichever schedule has received a majority vote.
Let me deal with the amendments standing in the names of the four Plaid Cymru Members. Their consequence would be that the legislation would come into force in Wales only by an order made by the National Assembly for Wales, whichever option were chosen. Under the terms of the devolution settlement endorsed by the people of Wales in a referendum, responsibility for primary legislation rests with the Westminster Parliament. Thus the power to decide whether to ban hunting in Wales is not transferred to the National Assembly for Wales.
The result of the amendments would be that the decision on the issue of hunting with dogs would, in effect, rest with the Assembly. For example, the Assembly could decide never to make the appropriate commencement order. Such a move would negate the will of this Parliament. Having said that—

Mr. Douglas Hogg: rose—

Mr. O'Brien: I suspect that a Plaid Cymru Member may want to intervene on this matter, so if the right hon. and learned Gentleman will forgive me, I shall take his intervention later.
I appreciate that the future of hunting with dogs may have particular implications for Welsh hill farmers. Such concerns should and can be taken into account during the passage of the Bill in this place and can be a subject for debate.

Mr. Simon Thomas: On the whole, the Minister has given an accurate portrayal of the purpose of


the amendments. Does he agree, however, that whichever provision is accepted, our amendments would not undermine the present devolution settlement? I draw his attention to the example of performance-related teachers' pay in Wales—enacted by primary legislation in this place, but brought in under a commencement order with a date to be decided by the National Assembly for Wales. That date may have been at no time in the future—exactly like these provisions. Nothing in the amendments undermines the settlement. The amendments would enable the National Assembly to do what it thinks fit for hunting and for agriculture in Wales.

Mr. O'Brien: The Bill creates criminal offences. Education is, of course, a devolved matter, so there would obviously be a relationship between the Westminster Parliament and the Welsh Assembly in which there was a certain amount of give and take. However, the Bill deals with criminal offences; it is my view that the 40 Members who represent Welsh constituencies are as capable as the Assembly of representing Wales on hunting with dogs.
In the light of my comments, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will feel able to withdraw the amendments in due course.

Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman is talking about devolved business. He will be aware that this matter is devolved business for the Scottish Parliament—the Bill does not apply to Scotland. What, then, is the justification for hon. Members who represent Scottish constituencies voting on a matter that has and can have no application for their constituents in Scotland?

Mr. O'Brien: This Parliament determines whether MPs can vote on a particular matter in this place. This Parliament has determined that MPs representing Scottish constituencies have a constitutional right to vote in the debate on this issue. I do not accept that it is right for the right hon. and learned Gentleman to undermine the legitimacy of the constitutional right of Members to vote in this House. Our view is that Scottish constituency Members will no doubt make their own judgment as to whether they want to vote—that is a decision for them. However, they have a constitutional right to vote and it is certainly wrong for the right hon. and learned Gentleman to try to undermine that. He may well want further to sow seeds of disunity, but the Government believe that Scottish constituency MPs who sit in this place perform functions which, under our constitution, it is right and proper for them to undertake.

Mr. Simon Hughes: rose—

Mr. James Gray: rose—

Mr. O'Brien: I shall give way once more and then I want to make some progress. I give way to the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes).

Mr. Hughes: On the Plaid Cymru amendments that would affect the right of the Welsh Assembly to trigger the legislation in Wales, will the Minister confirm that

there is no Government Whip and that all Labour Back Benchers are free to express their own view? Will he also confirm that it is thus up to the Committee to decide today whether it wants to amend, in respect of hunting, the previous settlement on the powers of the Welsh Assembly?

Mr. O'Brien: I assure the hon. Gentleman that there is no Government Whip on any of the merits of the issues. It might be helpful to point out that, once we get past the decision on the schedule, I, as the Minister, will have to put the view of this Committee to the Standing Committee. I intend to do that by ensuring that, in Standing Committee, the Government will protect the will of the House—whichever schedule it determines to support. We shall ensure that there is good law in the measure and that it is protected from unnecessary or undue change. Although we shall listen to any technical debates, it is our aim to deliver the will of the House during the Standing Committee proceedings.
At that stage, we shall have to consider any technical issues about which we receive clear legal advice that they would undermine the quality of good law, and whether there may be an issue in relation to whipping. I am not giving an undertaking throughout the Committee stage, but there is no Government Whip on the merits of the issues before the House today.
4 pm
Let me conclude by setting out the Government's broad position. The Government made a manifesto commitment to hold a free vote on hunting with dogs. Unlike previous Conservative Governments, this Government believe in delivering on their promises. It became clear during the debate on the Wild Mammals (Hunting with Dogs) Bill, which was introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster), that, to some extent, the core of factual argument usually present during debates did not exist on the issue of hunting with dogs. We therefore decided to set up the Burns inquiry, which reported in due course.
It is a great tribute to Lord Burns that the Countryside Alliance, Deadline 2000 and the Middle Way Group were all able to say that they could work with the report. It established a core of facts around which the wider moral and political debate could revolve. I believe, therefore, that this debate should be more factual, less emotional and more coherent, and that we can reach a much fairer decision.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. O'Brien: No, I have said that I shall not give way. I have been generous in giving way, and I shall not give way any further.
The Government's aim is to facilitate debate and decision. Some people have suggested that the House should not debate hunting at all. The Government's view is that hunting has been a matter of serious public debate for many years. It has been on the front pages of our newspapers and on our radio and television programmes. Acres of print have been devoted to it. It has also been the subject of controversy in social gatherings.

Mr. Hogg: On a point of order, Sir Alan. I am sorry to interrupt the Minister, but would it not be right to remind


hon. Members that the House is in Committee, where it is customary to allow interventions more freely? [Interruption.]

The Chairman: Order. I think that I can manage to deal with that point of order. Irrespective of whether the House is in Committee, it is entirely a matter of discretion as to whether the hon. Member who has the Floor gives way.

Mr. O'Brien: I am grateful to you, Sir Alan, for that advice. My concern is that Back Benchers want to speak in the debate and if I were to spend all my time taking interventions—which I could, because some Opposition Members would wish to try to bait the Minister—I could probably continue to speak for the text hour or so. Other hon. Members have the right to have a say. Perhaps if I set out the Government's broad position, we shall find out what others have to say.
Clearly, there are concerns throughout the country, but it is nonsense to suggest, as was done on Second Reading, that Parliament should not debate the issue or that we should somehow abstain from taking a decision on it. Other issues are important to the Government, and the Government are acting on them. Some of them have required legislation and others are being pursued by the Government as a matter of policy. They will affect rural areas in the same way that foxhunting does, whatever decision we take on it.
The Government proposed 19 Bills during the Queen's Speech, one of which was on hunting. On crime, we have set out our policies to tackle loutish and rowdy behaviour in rural and urban areas and to give more power to the police. We have set out our policies on how we are increasing police recruits by 9,000 over and above those originally expected. There are other issues. On the national health service and education, we have given the biggest boost to those public services in a generation.
To those who say that the mere debating of foxhunting sows divisions between the countryside and the town, I say that the Government have set out clear policies in their rural White Paper to help rural areas and those who may be affected by the decisions that we reach today. The previous Government ignored rural areas, which is why more people in rural areas voted Labour at the last general election than voted for the Conservatives. The Conservative party ignored rural areas, but the Government—

The Chairman: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the Minister, but he is going wide even of the clause stand part debate.

Mr. O'Brien: You are obviously aware, Sir Alan, that people have legitimately argued that, instead of dealing with hunting, the Government should concentrate on issues that relate to crime, the health service and education. I certainly accept your ruling, and I shall move on. However, I want to make it clear that the Government have set out their policies on such issues, and we are dealing with them as they relate to rural areas, which the previous Government failed to do.
The issue of sowing divisions between rural and urban areas has been raised by Opposition Back Benchers throughout our debates on hunting. It has been a key

argument of some people who would no doubt support clause 1. However, the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald is one of the people who best ditched that argument. She said:
The town verses the country claim is irresponsible for it attempts to divide Britain.
I give her credit for putting it like that. She set out her arguments at greater length in her article in The Observer some months ago. Her deputies should not undermine her views when they put their case before the House.
As for the House being precluded from debating hunting, Parliament is the forum for debate on issues of public importance, and hunting with dogs is an issue on which the public have always shown interest, whether they are for or against it. Let that debate begin today. That is the purpose of moving the clause. Let us have a debate that is in the spirit of the Burns report and hear arguments that are based more on fact than on emotion, so that we consider the issues of liberty and the concerns about cruelty.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. O'Brien: The House has a great tradition of being a forum for the nation, and hunting with dogs should be debated here.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. O'Brien: How could I refuse the right hon. and learned Gentleman, who is so persistent?

Sir Nicholas Lyell: The Minister just said that the debate should be based on factual argument. Before the rights of hundreds of thousands of citizens are removed and their lawful activities are criminalised, does he agree that that should be objectively justifiable and that questions of cruelty should be a matter not, as he put, for our consciences, but for the courts to decide on objective reasons?

Mr. O'Brien: If the right hon. and learned Gentleman is saying that Parliament should abrogate its constitutional right to make law, then I disagree with him. That is not what his constituents elected him to do. I was elected to consider the issues that are before the nation, and to debate them in a proper and sensible way. That is why we produced the Burns report; that is why we want the debate to have a factual core; and that is why we have said that the issue should be debated on the ground of rationality rather than of mere emotion.
The House has a great tradition of being a forum for the nation. Hunting with dogs should be debated here. Whether hunting is to continue or not, it is a decision for Parliament. I look forward to the debate. It will be a focus of great national interest, and it is right that we should have it.

Mr. David Lidington: I made my position clear during the debate on Second Reading. My intention is to vote in favour of the first option—the self-regulation option. If that is defeated, I shall vote for the option of licensed hunting as second best. I intend to vote against the third option, which proposes a complete ban on hunting with hounds. Conservative Members, like Labour


Members, have a free vote. As many hon. Members—on both sides of the House and on both sides of the debate—did not have the opportunity to set out their views at similar length on Second Reading, I intend to keep my contribution as brief as possible.
Those of us who are against a ban have to make up our minds between clauses 1 and 2. My support for the first option partly derives from my instinctive preference—unless there is very persuasive evidence to the contrary—for self-regulation rather than state regulation. I fear, too, that the licensing system that is proposed in schedule 2 would be both cumbersome and bureaucratic.
Before I go into further detail on my criticisms of that option, it is fair that I should pay tribute to the hard work that has been done by the authors of that option in the Middle Way Group and, in particular, by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) and the hon. Members for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding) and for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik). They have made an honest and determined effort to find middle ground that would enable both sides of this passionate argument to come together on an agreed solution. However, I am not persuaded that the option which they are offering and which would be brought into effect by clause 2 is the most desirable of the options available to the Committee.
State regulation almost inevitably brings with it a detailed Whitehall-written rule book. It introduces inflexibility in the adaptation of rules to the diversity of individual cases. In this particular case, we would be introducing, under schedule 2, a national system for licensing all hunting with dogs. That would not simply be a licensing system applying to organised hunts and organised hare coursing as they now exist, since licences would have to be sought and obtained by numerous individual men and women—for example, the people who own and use terriers in connection with the hunting of mammals.
The schedule would also introduce a national system for the inspection of premises. I am unclear from part II of schedule 2 whether the inspection regime would include the inspection of the homes of people who held a licence, but it certainly would appear to apply to hunt kennels, stables and farm buildings. That clearly would be a considerable task for a hunting authority to undertake. It would require an extensive body of detailed regulation and a fair number of employees or agents who would be prepared to act on behalf of the proposed hunting authority in implementing such a system of licensing and inspection.

Mr. Lembit Öpik: I shall go into this point in more detail should I catch your eye, Sir Alan, but I recognise that it would be an extensive project to inspect all those premises in the way our schedule would require. Nevertheless, we think that that is a price worth paying to make sure that hunting is conducted in a transparent manner. I appreciate that I may differ from the hon. Gentleman on that point.

Mr. Lidington: I understand and pay tribute to the motives that generated the proposal from the hon. Gentleman and his allies.

Mr. Tony Banks: The hon. Gentleman paid tribute to members of the Middle Way Group,

including the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik), but can be explain why the three leading protagonists of the middle way all voted against the Bill's Second Reading? Had they been successful, it would effectively have excluded them from considering their own proposal. Is it not a fact that the members of the Middle Way Group are nothing more than subfusc hunters?

Mr. Lidington: The hon. Gentleman has a long track record of seeking a complete ban on hunting and he is being true to his history. It is for the members of the Middle Way Group to speak for themselves if they get the opportunity and to justify the stand that they have taken and will take today. As the hon. Gentleman said, and as I implied in my introductory remarks, the choice between the first and second options at the end of today's proceedings is really a choice for those who believe, as I do and as the Home Secretary does, that hunting should be allowed to continue.

Mr. Nicholas Soames: While I endorse my hon. Friend's views about the work and authorship of the Middle Way Group and their good intention, I am sure that it would not be his intention to suggest that the Masters of Foxhounds Association does not vigorously and robustly police the rules of hunting.

Mr. Lidington: My hon. Friend's comment is apt and true, and it is one reason why I believe that self-regulation is the option that the Committee should prefer when we come to divide.
My greatest doubt about schedule 2—the so-called middle way option—concerns its supporters' optimism that it will be a solution that the opponents of hunting will accept. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire is a man who knows his Bible. I consider that the vision in chapter 11 of the Book of Isaiah—the vision of the wolf dwelling with the lamb—is more likely to be achieved than those who have been opposed to hunting as a matter of principle for many years agreeing on the middle way option.
We are dealing not only with people who have put forward in this place the case for a statutory ban on hunting with hounds, but with people outside the House who have shown that they are prepared to use intimidation, threats of violence and actual violence to achieve their ends. We are talking about people who within the past few weeks have used nail bombs against ordinary British citizens who have some link, direct or indirect, with hunting, which remains a perfectly lawful pursuit.
Today, a message has been posted on the website of the League Against Cruel Sports by someone who perhaps sums up the extreme view on that side of the debate. He says to his allies:
Please try and come along to the House of Commons today if you support a ban on hunting.
We need as many people as possible to show the hunters what real scum they are. Perhaps we could also smash their tents they've been sleeping in over the past couple of days.
The message is signed "Vegan", and the signature is followed by what appear to be two kisses. Such irrational and unreasoning hostility—indeed, hatred—has been


experienced by many ordinary decent men and women in different parts of the country who enjoy supporting or following lawful hunts.

Ms Claire Ward: While no one would justify such activities, will the hon. Gentleman tell me whether he justifies the attack on my constituency office by pro-hunt supporters in the middle of last night? The attack damaged my office, making it impossible for my assistants to gain entry for a good few hours and preventing them from doing the work necessary to help my constituents. Will the hon. Gentleman condemn those who took part in that outrageous activity?

Mr. Lidington: I believe that all parties to the debate should stay strictly within the law; that any allegation that the law has been broken—whether in the case that the hon. Lady describes, in those that I have mentioned, or in those to which other hon. Members have referred during other debates—should be properly investigated by the police; and that, if the evidence to do so exists, a prosecution should be brought before the courts in the usual way.
I do not believe that the agreement sought by the Middle Way Group is likely to be reached, which in turn means that there will be continuing controversy about some of the elements of the group's proposal. If it were enacted, there would be a risk of continuing controversy about the proposed selection by the Secretary of State of the members of the hunting authority. There would be arguments about whether the members of the authority represented the balance of interests envisaged in the schedule. There is also a question in my mind about whether the proposed authority would be likely ever to reach a decision by consensus, or whether there would instead be a series of bitter arguments about codes of practice and individual licensing decisions—arguments which would presumably be settled by a vote among the members of the authority, without the consensus sought by the authors of the proposal.

Mr. Öpik: In the context of the concerns voiced by the hon. Gentleman and others, the Middle Way Group recognises that it is creating a framework within which such issues will have to be resolved. Throughout, we have tried to create a balance: for example, we have specified that the majority of members of the hunting authority must have no vested interest in either side of the hunting debate. We are sympathetic to the concerns that have been expressed, but we believe that they ire capable of being resolved during the set-up period that the Minister described.

Mr. Lidington: If the hon. Gentleman's proposal were made law, my hope would be that his optimism would be justified by the way in which events unfolded. I have expressed my doubts about whether that is likely.
Faced with the choice, I should greatly prefer clause 2 and schedule 2, whatever the imperfections, to the complete ban provided for in clause 3 and schedule 3. I believe that a ban is objectionable in principle. It would impose severe restrictions on the freedom of tens of thousands of our fellow citizens and would do so with no gain in terms of animal welfare. I have yet to hear from those who advocate a ban on hunting any persuasive account of how the much greater use of shooting and

snaring that would inevitably follow the imposition of a ban on hunting with hounds would lead to a beneficial outcome in animal welfare terms. Indeed, the reverse is true: shooting and snaring are unselective; there is no closed season for shooting or snaring foxes; and shooting and snaring carry a far greater risk than hunting of an animal being wounded and left to die a lingering and painful death. Indeed, that analysis lay behind the conclusion of the Burns report that there were serious animal welfare implications in all the alternative methods of mammal control considered by the inquiry.
A detailed examination of schedule 3 gives cause for real disquiet about its practical implications. The offences are not tightly defined, there is no definition of hunting and the schedule makes no reference to cruelty—all matters that should be explored further in Standing Committee.

Mr. Banks: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Lidington: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I want to make progress.
The police powers envisaged in the schedule are draconian. The schedule would give the police the power to arrest without warrant anyone who they thought had committed, was committing, or was about to commit, an offence as defined by the schedule.
The maximum penalty that the Bill proposes for hunting with hounds, if the practice were to be outlawed, is a fine. However, under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, those offences in respect of which the police have a power of arrest without warrant are normally those so serious that they carry a prison sentence of five years or longer. To add hunting with hounds to that list of arrestable offences seems to be employing disproportionate and draconian enforcement measures to the problem, even judged by the likes of those who are seeking a ban.

Mr. Banks: I apologise for taking the hon. Gentleman back slightly. Through the miracles of modern technology, he referred to something on the website of the League Against Cruel Sports. That item was not authorised by the league or put on the website by it, and it has been removed. The league believes that it was a bit of black propaganda. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would like to have that information.

Mr. Lidington: I am glad that the league has removed it. If the hon. Gentleman reads Hansard tomorrow, I think he will find that I made it clear that the message had been posted by its author on the league's website.
Assaulting or obstructing a police constable in the performance of his duty is not an arrestable offence. However, if the schedule is enacted, letting one's dog hunt a rabbit will potentially become an arrestable offence. That seems hardly the best use of scarce police time and resources.
Yesterday, the Home Office announced a huge increase in violent crime. Today, the Government are saying that the top priority for government action and for new law is a Bill to ban foxhunting. The Government are showing a sense of priorities that verges on the surreal. A ban on hunting would be both illiberal and intolerant. It would harm individual freedom without benefits to animal


welfare. It would involve powers and penalties out of all proportion to the alleged problem. When those of us who intend to do so vote against a ban tonight, we shall be voting for the liberty of our constituents, for the livelihoods of our constituents and for plain common sense.

Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: I shall intervene only briefly because I have to attend a statutory instruments Committee. Perhaps the House will understand if I leave the Chamber after I have spoken.
My right hon. and hon. Friends will last weekend have received two videos in the post. One of them was called "The Killing Game", and I do not dissent from its contents. It was produced by an organisation called Protect our Wild Animals. Another video was sent by my friend and colleague, Lord Bragg—Melvyn Bragg. It sets out the story of a man who lives in the Lake district in a neighbouring constituency to mine and who farms on Langdale. He has a particular problem which he has set out in the video. I appeal to my right hon. and hon. Friends not to put that video in the bin, which is what we usually do with videos. I appeal to my right hon. and hon. Friends who may not be in the Chamber—they may be in their offices, or wherever—to consider the video's contents.
I am against hunting, and I have opposed it all my life. I will vote for a complete ban this evening. However, there is a problem in parts of the country which is not being addressed in the debate. That problem is what will happen in the Lake district, parts of Scotland and, I am told, parts of Wales in the event that there is a total ban.
The problem is simple and is set out in "Eric's Story". Eric Taylforth is a fell farmer, and he was filmed last December in the snow looking after his lambs. He argues that, in the event of hunting being ended, he will lose lambs, and he refuses to allow guns on to his fells.
I shall not be here in the next Parliament, but there will be complaints from somewhere in the country the moment that the shooters appear on the fells under the pretext that they are setting out to kill foxes. It will not work. An invasion of rifles and weaponry into a national park such as mine, where people roam over the fells throughout the year, cannot be allowed. My sons were on top of Latrigg, a fell in the Lake district, only a few weeks ago at Christmas in the snow. People roam the fells the year round. If the Bill is enacted in its present form, the shooters will be allowed into the Lake district and they will do much damage and frighten many people.
4.30 pm
I appeal to my right hon. and hon. Friends to address this important problem. One or two farmers in the Lake district are prepared to see the shooters there, but in reality—

Mrs. Jackie Lawrence: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Campbell-Savours: No, I want to be brief. I am sorry, but many people want to speak.
I appeal to my right hon. and hon. Friends to watch the video.

Sir Patrick Cormack: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Campbell-Savours: I am sorry, but I do not intend to give way.
Some of my right hon. and hon. Friends have told me that their minds are made up, that they do not want to consider the video and will throw it in the bin. That is not the way to proceed in a matter such as this. We must consider the other case. We must consider the special problems of people who refuse completely to accept the right of the gun user in the Lake district to shoot the fox.

Mr. Michael Howard: My remarks this afternoon will be brief. I gave my reasons for opposing a ban on hunting in the Adjournment debate on the Burns report on 7 July 2000. As I said then, it is clear, on any reading of the report, that there is no animal welfare case for the banning of hunting. The report makes it clear that the only consequence of a ban would be an increased use of other methods of keeping the fox population under control which would, in the phrase made famous by the report, compromise the welfare of the fox to at least as great an extent as hunting. The arguments that I set out then ware not answered in that debate and have not been answered since. I do not believe that they can be answered.
Today, I want to make a different point. We meet to debate this issue the day after the Home Secretary announced the crime figures for the year to last September. They showed a sharp increase in violent crime and a 21 per cent. increase in robbery. The reasons for that extremely distressing development have been extensively canvassed by Opposition Members. There are 2,500 fewer police officers than there were at the time of the previous election. There is widespread demoralisation among the police. The Home Secretary has caused more than 26,000 prisoners to be released early so that they may be free to re-offend. [Interruption.] It is against that background—Labour Members do not seem to be aware of this—that the House must consider the Bill today. The Government are, in effect, telling the police, "We don't think you have enough to do. We think you have time on your hands, so we will give you an additional task, an extra burden. We will ask you to enforce a ban on an activity which has been lawful in Britain since time immemorial."

Mr. Soames: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that it is said that the Association of Chief Police Officers has made representations to the Home Secretary to the effect that, with the present resources, it could not possibly be hoped effectively to police a ban such as is proposed.

Mr. Howard: I have not seen that report and do not know whether it has been made public. It would be helpful to the House if the Minister responded to my hon. Friend's comments when he comes to reply to the debate.

Mr. Ivor Caplin: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman answer a simple question? Is he telling the House that police budgets today do not take account of the cost of policing hunts?

Mr. Howard: I do not think that there is any comparison or parallel to be drawn. The provision


proposes imposing a new burden on the police of enforcing an entirely new criminal offence. That is the Government's response to the crime figures that they announced yesterday.

Mr. Hancock: I remember that argument being put forward a while ago when we banned firearms. The suggestion then was that previous owners of firearms, like me, would go and shoot illegally and the police would have a big job policing that. However, that never manifested itself. Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman really telling the House that if a ban is agreed by Parliament, hunters and their dogs will continue to hunt across the countryside, and that those people will commit a crime?

Mr. Howard: I am saying that the provision will impose an additional burden on the police, and that is an entirely frivolous response from the Government to the crime figures that they announced yesterday.

Mr. Lidington: Did my right hon. and learned Friend see the interview that the assistant chief constable of South Yorkshire police gave to Sky News earlier today? With the diplomacy which senior officers always deploy in their public statements, he said:
there's no doubt a total ban would present the police nationally and within individual forces with quite a challenge.

Mr. Howard: I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing that to my attention. I did not see that interview, but I hope that it will have an effect on the Government's responses.

Mr. Mike O'Brien: I am sure that, as a former Home Secretary, the right hon. and learned Gentleman would be interested to know the view of the Association of Chief Police Officers communicated to Home Office officials. It is that, by and large, the expenditure of resources on dealing with hunts and protests against hunts now is probably very similar to any costs that the police are likely to face if a ban is imposed. I am not saying that to advocate one position or another or even to disagree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman's argument. It is merely a point of information which, as it is ACPO's view, will no doubt interest him.

Mr. Howard: I note that the Minister's summary of ACPO's response was prefaced by the words "by and large". I hope that he will make that response public: I hope that he will put it before the House so that we can all make up our own minds about what ACPO actually said. I should much prefer that to the Minister's garbled summary of its response. I should like to see what the report itself says.

Mr. Paice: rose—

Mr. Howard: I shall give way once more, but then I must make progress.

Mr. Paice: All the interventions that my right hon. and learned Friend has just taken on the issue of police resources ignore the fact that the police cannot cope with what they are supposed to do at present. Reference was made to people continuing to hunt illegally. However,

is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that that already happens? Throughout East Anglia, there is a curse of illegal hare coursing against which the police, at present, cannot enforce the law. Therefore, enforcing further bans would only make a difficult situation worse.

Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend makes an utterly cogent point.

Mr. Gordon Prentice: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Mr. Howard: No; I have been generous in giving way and I want to make progress.
The Home Secretary, apparently, is going to vote for clause 2. I shall say a few words about that provision. Anyone tempted by it should really have been put off by the fact that it has been produced by a group called the Middle Way Group. If that were not enough, Members should have been put on their guard by the fact that the leading promoter of the middle way option is the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) who, for all his many and varied qualities, is a Liberal Democrat. I thought that, in many quarters of the House, there was general recognition that few problems are not made worse by the intervention of the Liberal Democrats. Indeed, that used to be one of the few points on which the present Home Secretary and I were in almost total agreement.

Mr. Luff: My right hon. and learned Friend might want to know that I wrote the brief that the parliamentary counsel used to draft clause 2 and schedule 2, for which I take the credit.

Mr. Howard: With all due respect I say to my hon. Friend that even Homer nods.
I ask hon. Members to consider from the police's point of view the effect of the middle way proposal set out in clause 2. It is bad enough for the police to have to enforce a total ban, but the middle way would impose a far more complicated task on them. They would have to take a view in every case on whether the terms of the licence under which the particular hunting event in question occurred were being observed. Hon. Members should consider the nature of the burden that such a provision would impose on the police.
It beggars belief that any serious Government who face an explosion of violent crime would even contemplate distracting the police from the urgent task of tackling that problem by imposing upon them large, uncertain and impractical burdens such as those proposed in the Bill. However, this Administration are not a serious Government. If any further proof is needed that they are a trivial, frivolous and irresponsible Government, the Bill provides it. The only question that remains to be decided is whether there is a trivial, frivolous and irresponsible majority in the House. If not, clause I will be supported tonight.

Mr. Michael J. Foster: I should like to address my first point to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, although he is absent. It is not too late to be converted to the need to ban hunting with dogs. For evidence, I turn to my local evening paper, the Evening News, which carried a story yesterday about an


11-year-old girl called Sarah Jeavons, who opposed my 1997 private Member's Bill on hunting. She was eight at the time and took the day off school to plead with me to abandon plans to ban hunting with dogs. Her family were due to join the march later this year to oppose what they consider to be the Government's plans on hunting with dogs.
Mrs. Jeavons, Sarah's mum, says in the story
People used to say that anti-hunt people are bad, but the pro-hunters are worse.
She then goes on to relate what happened to her last Saturday:
Sarah and I took our dogs for a walk on Saturday morning and, when we got back to our house, our drive was blocked. The whipper-in was on the lawn. There was a pack of terrier men in my drive and they were harassing my children.
Mrs. Jeavons says that Sarah, who is now 11, was reduced to tears, that the whipper-in had to take control of her horse and that the hounds chased after her cat and tried to kill it. She now claims that she and her family are confirmed antis and will not continue to support the pro-hunt movement.

Mr. Luff: As the events that the hon. Gentleman describes occurred in my constituency, I have done some research on them. It is no surprise that, not for the first time, he is building his house on a foundation of sand, not stone. The background is that hunt politics is brutal and that the Jeavons family had not paid their cap fees to go hunting with the Croome. They were, therefore, not allowed to do so and the story is their way of getting their own back on the hunt.
The events did not occur in the described manner. Something significantly less serious occurred. Even if they were as described—the Worcester Evening News now knows that they were not—I invite the hon. Gentleman to reflect on the fact that, contrary to the comments of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), the middle way offers a solution to such difficulties, as it would ban a hunt that breaks the terms of its licence, goes where it is not wanted or compromises public safety. I invite him also to recognise that the events were not as they are described.

Mr. Foster: I appreciate that the Evening News has got a good story. The joint master of the local hunt is a Mr. Rob Adams. Mr. Adams is a friend of the hon. Gentleman and was, when I last spoke to him, a member of the executive committee of his Conservative association. Mr. Adams said:
I can only think that this was a conflict of personalities.
I must say that the events described in my local paper make that the most understated fact of the year.
4.45 pm
Option 1 represents the pro-hunt view and proposes self-regulation. I reject that view, but at least I understand where people who support option 1 are coming from. They take the view, on a "civil libertarian" basis, that the animal welfare issue is not sufficiently serious to warrant an infringement of so-called civil liberties, and that

self-regulation should therefore be allowed to continue. They describe that as a principled view. It has been expressed today, mainly by the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), but I reject it totally.
I do, however, agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman's assessment of option 2, the middle way, which I consider to be misleading, to say the least. The hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) spoke of the imposition of some sort of regulatory framework. No doubt we shall discover in due course whether or not the incidents that I have described took place on Saturday, but let us say that they did. The proposals of the Middle Way Group suggest an assumption that the hunt involved would be punished in some way, and prevented from hunting again. To that I would say, "Get real"; that is not what will happen in the real world of hunting with dogs.
The Middle Way Group does not propose a compromise. When a wild mammal is chased to the point of exhaustion before being torn apart, is that really something on which we can compromise? It is not; there is no way we can reach a compromise.
As for the so-called independence of the hunting authority, the authority will be paid for by licence fees paid by people who hunt. Those who want to hunt will pay their fees and go off with their licences. The saying "He who pays the piper calls the tune" has often been quoted to me, and that is exactly what will happen in the case of the so-called independent authority. Those who hunt will be paying to keep the authority going, and I cannot think for a minute that it will suddenly turn around and say, "We do not like a certain aspect of the practice, and we will not take licence money from those who engage in it."

Mr. John Bercow: I think that the hon. Gentleman's argument is flawed. It seems to me, and to many of my hon. Friends, that what is more important is the composition of the authority and its practices. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding) for her assent to that proposition.
Does the hon. Gentleman, on the strength of the logic that he has employed, object profoundly to the Advertising Standards Authority, which operates on precisely the same basis?

Mr. Foster: We are dealing with a completely different matter.

Mr. Bercow: Answer the question.

Mr. Foster: Let me address it. Advertising as an industry is keen to promote itself, and therefore will pay towards an independent authority. In the case of hunting, what we are apparently trying to say is that we will regulate the practice and punish those who fail. We are dealing here with an animal welfare matter, not with whether a particular advertisement should be shown on television. We are dealing with a practice that is inhumane and cruel to wild mammals.

Mr. Hogg: rose—

Mr. Öpik: rose—

Mr. Quentin Davies: rose—

Mr. Foster: I will make a bit more progress now, but I will give way later.
The Middle Way Group wants to know whether a principled stance is being taken. Again I find myself in agreement with the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe. We would not be in a position to make a judgment on whether someone who is hunting is carrying a licence at the point at which the police came to investigate the activity.

Mr. Hogg: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Foster: I should like to make a little more progress.
If the Middle Way Group is not careful, this is what will happen. A couple of lads in an inner-city area—let us say Perry Barr in Birmingham, for want of a better example—might well be out chasing a fox with their dogs. What is wrong is the activity itself; whether those lads had a licence in their back pockets is irrelevant.

Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman suggested that the hunting authority would not be able to act impartially, because it is funded by hunts. I am no particular supporter of the authority—I favour self-regulation—but, on any view, the authority's membership will comprise persons nominated by the Secretary of State. It will therefore not be beholden to the hunts, although the hunts may finance them.

Mr. Foster: I accept that the members will be the Secretary of State's appointees, but the right hon. and learned Gentleman will accept that it will be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to get people who are neutral on the issue, which raises passions on both sides of the argument.

Mr. Öpik: As the hon. Gentleman knows, although we differ I respect his position. On his point about funding, does he not accept that it is simple? If an individual or organisation does not get a licence, it simply will not hunt. It will not be allowed to hunt; it will be illegal. As such, it would be difficult for them, for example, to blackmail the authority in the way that he described.

Mr. Foster: I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising the point about the illegality of not having a licence. The Middle Way Group would make so-called criminals of people who engaged in hunting that was not licensed. One of the arguments against the Bill is that it will make criminals of so-called law-abiding citizens, but the Middle Way Group must acknowledge that it will do exactly that. The difference is that those people may not belong to the right club, or may not have the right licence. I do not care whether they wear a red jacket, a pink jacket or a donkey jacket. It is the activity that I am concerned about and that I oppose.

Mr. Hancock: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that two points are missing from the argument on the middle way? First, anyone who breaks the law does so of their own choice, but that is not being recognised. Parliament is not forcing anyone to commit a criminal act. Secondly, it is not about the licensing authority, but about how we would actually police the whole hunt from start to finish—from

letting the dogs go until the kill. That could take four or five hours and spread over seven miles. I have not yet heard a coherent argument that that can be achieved.

Mr. Foster: The hon. Gentleman makes his point coherently. It needs no further comment from me.

Mr. Desmond Swayne: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Foster: No. I want to be brief.
Option 3, which involves a complete ban, is the most consistent and principled of the three options that we must consider. Hon. Members will have weighed up the evidence presented by Burns. I have looked at the issue since my election to the House and have not yet come across evidence to lead me to any conclusion but that hunting with dogs is cruel and unnecessary. The distress that is caused to animals leads people to make a moral judgment—I accept that—that it is time that the practice was stopped.

Mr. Eric Martlew: My hon. Friend talks about evidence. I am sure that he has received a video recently from my noble Friend Lord Bragg of Wigton. I enjoyed the title because it was called "Eric's Tale", but the rest was a bit of a fallacy. Is he aware of a video called "Cumbrian Tales", which was shot by the BBC and shown on television'? It showed the village of Ireby, where Lord Bragg has a house. When the local shepherd, who had a problem with a rogue fox and who was pro-hunting, decided that something had to be done, he did not call for the Cumberland Farmers foxhounds—he got a number of friends together, and they flushed the fox out of the woods and shot it. Is that the right way forward?

Mr. Foster: Option 3 recognises that in upland areas the flushing out of a fox to be shot by a gun is more humane. It is recognised in the Bill as a way in which upland areas can deal with that issue, but it is beyond me how people can believe that dogs, when they sniff out the scent of a fox in the pursuit, can distinguish between the rogue fox that is causing the problem and a fox that happens to be in the neighbourhood—dogs are not that clever.
A private Member's Bill was introduced in 1997; then we had the Burns report, an independent inquiry; and we now have a free vote, as we did on Second Reading of that Bill, and a range of options from which to choose. I should hope that the creation of those three mechanisms will help those in another place to accept that whichever judgment the House reaches today, that judgment should prevail. They should accept that hon. Members have taken a considered and serious view of the matter.
I hope that progress will not be further frustrated. Consideration needs to be given to whether some of the threats that have been made and outlined in The Guardian today and in The Observer on Sunday are in contempt of the Committee. The threats are certainly contemptuous of hon. Members.
Four years ago, I was placed in a unique position with my private Member's Bill. I was, and still am, opposed to hunting.

Mr. Luff: The hon. Gentleman should listen to his constituents.

Mr. Foster: That is exactly what I did. My constituents asked me, in the local newspaper, to take up the issue.


I stood on an election platform declaring that I was opposed to hunting with dogs, and I had the unique opportunity of coming first in the ballot. I could have chosen another issue for my Bill. If I did so, however, how would I be able to look people in the eye and say, "I am opposed to it, but when I was given the chance I did nothing about it"? I did not do that and I would not do that. I am pleased that I took up the challenge, and I am pleased that the Government are bringing the matter to a conclusion.

Mr. John Maples: I do not think that it will come as a surprise to the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster) if I say that I do not agree with him. I should like to put the alternative case, for allowing hunting to continue.
I have twice had an experience, which I imagine is shared by other hon. Members, of coming to the House to vote in one way but, after perhaps mistakenly listening to the debate, changing my mind. It happened to me on whether the European convention on human rights should be incorporated in United Kingdom law, and more recently on whether we should have an elected House of Lords. In both cases, as I said, I made the mistake of listening to the debate and changing my mind. I speak today in the hope—which I hope is not entirely forlorn—that I might persuade just one person who thinks that hunting should be banned to think again.
I do not hunt. I occasionally went beagling when I was a teenager. I have hunted, shot and fished very unsuccessfully, but I do not expect that I shall do any of them again. However, a great many of my constituents participate in them. I represent half of Warwickshire, a rural area in which hunting has been going on for a very long time, and a significant minority regard hunting as a right, a freedom and, indeed, a passion. The opponents of hunting do not realise how passionate those who hunt are about it. It is not only a hobby, a pastime or something that they do on Saturday afternoons. I think that their freedom to hunt is important.
As the hon. Member for Worcester said, we have a perceived conflict between animal welfare and personal liberty. I believe that personal freedom is a fundamental aspect of our citizenship. It is a fundamental part of the House's job to protect the freedoms of minorities. It is easy to protect the freedoms of majorities; they have no problem at all. However, unpopular or small minorities deserve to have their freedoms protected as well. They should not be judged by opinion polls or by what the majority of people think. If we were to legislate by opinion poll, we would have capital punishment back in a flash. I expect that the majority of Labour Members would not want to see that, and neither would I.
We cannot ban things simply because we do not like them. The only conceivable reason for banning foxhunting and removing people's fundamental freedom to hunt is that a ban is necessary on overwhelming animal welfare grounds. I do not believe that those grounds exist. I do not believe that the Burns report discloses them, and I believe that the alternatives are very probably worse.
There is a rather misplaced and cuddly notion about foxes—that they are curly things that sit on the end of one's bed and keep one warm at night—but they are

killers. If hon. Members are really worried about cruelty to animals, they should be more keen to ban foxes than to ban hunting. Every year, an enormous number of animals such as lambs, piglets, chickens and ducks are gratuitously killed by foxes. Foxes do not kill only the animal that they want to eat; they kill hundreds and thousands of them. For that reason, they are judged to be vermin. They might be rather better looking vermin than rats, but they are vermin and they have to be controlled.

Mr. Gordon Prentice: The hare is not vermin or a pest. The Burns report makes the point that, in hare coursing, hares are pursued for entertainment—sport. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could share with us his views on whether hare coursing should continue.

5 pm

Mr. Maples: The Burns report dealt with those issues. I want to focus on foxhunting. [Interruption.] I shall make a short speech about one aspect of the issue, and that aspect is foxhunting. If the hon. Gentleman wants to introduce a Bill to ban hare coursing alone, and which would not cover foxhunting, that can be discussed. I wish to deal with the issue of foxhunting, because it affects a great many of my constituents.

Mr. Hogg: Is not the truth that all country and field sports are the same, and that no sensible distinction can be made between angling, shooting and foxhunting? They stand or fall together, and those of us who stand for freedom should defend them all.

Mr. Maples: I intend to move on to some of the anomalies in the attitudes of those who think that foxhunting should be banned.

Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hancock: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Maples: I want to deal with one matter first.
The animal welfare issue is fundamental to the argument of those who want to ban hunting. Anyone with any knowledge of the countryside knows that the alternatives are worse. At the end of a hunt, a fox is either dead or alive, but trapping and shooting often leave foxes injured. People who want to ban foxhunting must show that it is more cruel and contrary to the animal's welfare than shooting or trapping. I contend that it is not.
Trapping is a horrible process. Foxes in traps bite off their own legs. They are quite smart: they inhale to help themselves get out, only to find that the trap tightens on them when they have to breathe again. Such deaths are horrible and revolting, and much worse than death by hunting. However, if animals have to be controlled, some way of killing them has to be found. I contend that foxhunting is undoubtedly the most efficient method.

Mr. Hoyle: The hon. Gentleman is clearly not aware that not all foxes are killed by hunting with hounds. Far from it: most foxes are shot, trapped or poisoned. That will remain so whether hunting continues or not.

Mr. Maples: Poisoning is, in fact, already illegal, but I am aware of what the hon. Gentle man says. I consider that, if the Bill goes through, about 14,000 foxes killed by hunts each year will be trapped or shot.

Mr. Banks: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Maples: No, I want to move on. The hon. Gentleman spoke at length on Second Reading, and may get a chance to speak later today.
The illogicality of the opposition to foxhunting lies not only in the question of whether the alternatives are worse or better, but in our attitude to different animals. Mice and rats are vermin, and I doubt that any hon. Member would hesitate to poison or trap them, even though the deaths involved are pretty unpleasant.
The truth is that most wild animals have, and are, predators. The approach of those who support the Bill is illogical. Why are fishing and shooting not covered by the Bill? I suspect that the answer is that 4 million people fish and 1 million people shoot. I suspect, too, that they will be next on the list, and I suggest that those who shoot and fish had better join those who support hunting.
I know that the Prime Minister has said that he has no intention of banning shooting and fishing, but the anti-hunting lobby is open about its agenda, and its supporters say that, once they have banned hunting, they will aim to nail the next target.
Why do we not outlaw halal butchery, which is a revoltingly cruel practice? The answer has to do with the sensibilities of an ethnic minority, and I happen to think that that is right. However, we are sensible to the rights and beliefs of that minority, but not to the rights and beliefs of those who hunt. Why do we not outlaw battery hens? A hunted fox might meet a pretty unpleasant end, but it does not live a disgusting life for three or six months in 6 sq ins of space.
We keep two cats in south Warwickshire, and I expect that they do far more damage to the local wildlife than the hunt. Cats are cruel animals: they do not merely kill their victims, but injure them and then play with them. That shows the illogicality of the Bill's approach: for example, it allows dogs to be used to flush out wild mammals that can then be killed by a bird of prey.
I could take the proposition advanced in the Bill from a vegetarian who wears plastic shoes and does not believe that even mosquitoes should be killed. The hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) may fit into the category, but is the Bill really about animal welfare?
If we examine the animal welfare issues at stake, we experience difficulty in concluding t hat the other options are better. I ask right hon. and hon. Members who are in favour of the Bill whether it is really the welfare of the fox that they are concerned about, or is it that they do not like people who hunt and the whole process of it? I think that there is a prejudice here. I dc not say that in an insulting or rude way; I merely ask people to consider it because in the arguments on the ism that I have had, that has, very often, been the truth.
I should like to say a few words about the Warwickshire hunt. I am not speaking for myself, except in the sense that the diminishment of the freedoms of my fellow citizens diminishes mine. My primary purpose in speaking is because a hunt has existed in Warwickshire

for hundreds of years. Every week about 200 people ride with the hunt—probably not the same 200 every week—another 50 or 100 support it on foot and there are many other supporters.
The hunt contains a cross-section of the community, with very many ordinary people taking part. There are not enough toffs in Warwickshire to send 200 out a week with grooms and changes of horses. Most people look after their own horse. It has 100 to 120 hounds, which, of course, will be killed if the Bill goes through. [Interruption.] They will be killed. They are no use as pets because they are pack animals.

Mr. Ian Cawsey: The hon. Gentleman no doubt already knows that hunting dogs are killed routinely in mid-term in their lives anyway, and are killed as puppies if they show no intention to hunt when they are in the cubbing season. The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals has said that it will put into place procedures to ensure that dogs are rehoused in the event—[Interruption.] A lot of right hon. and hon. Members are shaking their heads, but that is the case. Will the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that those dogs face a much better future than if they stay with the hunt, where they will certainly be destroyed?

Mr. Maples: Will the hon. Gentleman give me a commitment that if the Bill goes through he will take one of the hounds of the Warwickshire hunt and keep it as a pet in his house? They make very unsatisfactory pets.

Mr. Cawsey: I take dog responsibility very seriously, and I have my own pets. A dog is for life, not just for a debate. However, I give the hon. Gentleman this pledge—that in association with the RSPCA, I will play my part.

Mr. Maples: I do not think that that was an unequivocal yes.
The fact is that those dogs would go. Many jobs would go—seven full-time people work there, and, if the Burns report is right, there are probably 40 jobs on average associated with the hunt. They are very respectable people, not louts and hooligans.

Mr. David Taylor: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Maples: No, I should like to make some progress because I know that a lot of other people want to speak.
I am not speaking about louts and hooligans who get drunk at football matches and smash up the town. These people care for the countryside. Many are farmers who own and look after the countryside. They keep dogs and horses.
A hunt is also a force in the community. It is an institution of rural society. It is about much more than just hunting. On Monday, the Prime Minister was on an estate in the east end of London and he talked about rebuilding our cities. He said that he thought that communities operated best when empowered to control their own destiny. I wonder why that is not so for the countryside. Hunting is a powerful institution in the countryside. It binds the rural society together in a way that other institutions do not.
If we ban hunting, we must face not only the issues of personal liberty and animal welfare but the consequences of our actions. The RSPCA will have to find 20,000 hounds nice loving homes, like that of the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Mr. Cawsey), or they will have to be killed. I think that it is more likely that most of them will be killed because they do not make successful pets, particularly after being a member of a pack of hounds.
According to the Burns report, about 14,000 jobs, some of them part-time, are at stake, connected with blacksmiths, saddlers, vets and stables. National hunt racing will be seriously threatened. There will be far fewer horses because many people who hunt will not keep horses if hunting is made illegal. The result of everything that we would be giving away or sacrificing would be that about 14,000 foxes would be shot or trapped instead of being hunted and killed by hounds. They will not be saved. Those 14,000 foxes will not be alive at the end of the year when they would otherwise have been dead. They will have been trapped or shot instead, and 70,000 to 80,000 people who hunt or participate in hunting will have lost what, to them, is a valuable freedom. The consequences are not only practical—I believe that personal freedom is fundamental.
Last year, the House spent an enormous amount of its time, perfectly correctly, debating the age of consent for homosexuals. I do not know how many homosexual men between the ages of 16 and 18 will take advantage of that legislation. I suspect that only a few thousand, if that, will do so. Some 80,000 will be directly affected by this Bill. When we talk about individuals' freedom to behave as they want, we cannot take just the people with whom we agree and dismiss the rest. We have to consider personal freedom across the waterfront, and we have to be very careful about taking it away.
It seems to me that the welfare gain for foxes is at best zero. It is probably negative, because trapping and shooting are worse than hunting. Freedom must prevail. If prejudice prevails and the banners win the argument, what will be next? Fishing and shooting, I am sure, will be next. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Hon. Members say no, but it will be the next campaign.
I personally feel about boxing all the things that people feel about hunting. I find it barbaric. I feel that it demeans humans, but if people want to do it, they should be free to do so. I do not want to do it; I do not want to watch it; but I believe that people who do should be absolutely free to do it.
I started one of the notes that I made for today by saying that the ban would not affect me. In the sense that I do not hunt, it will not. However, it will affect me because if we take away part of my neighbours' freedom, we take away part of mine, and we are all involved in each other's freedom and the concept of personal freedom.
What about my children? I have young children. My daughter is mad about ponies, for some reason that I cannot understand and try to disabuse her of. What if she decides that she wants to hunt? Why should her generation be the first in Warwickshire for hundreds of years—no, for ever—not to be allowed to hunt?
I hope that those who propose the Bill will reflect carefully on whether they really believe that the animal welfare gain outweighs the loss of personal freedom.

The freedoms of minorities may be ours legally to dispose of by legislation, but surely our duty to protect and defend those freedoms is far more important.
The House has a long and honourable tradition of defending liberties, especially those of minorities, and it should not take them away for no clear or obvious benefit or gain, even for the foxes.

Mr. Tony Banks: If the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples) reads the Burns report, he will see that Burns says that shooting and lamping is preferable to hunting. So there are alternatives. I agree with the hon. Gentleman about snares. Snaring is an appalling thing. I wish to see snaring completely removed from the countryside as fast as possible.
The hon. Gentleman was right when he said that foxes were killers. Yes, they are. That is how nature made them. It is true that they do a lot of damage where they can get into areas such as hen coops. It is up to farmers to husband their animals properly. I saw a fox in my garden in Forest Gate. For those who lo not know where Forest Gate is—they might get it from the name—it is at the edge of Epping forest. We see foxes fairly regularly. I was appalled, and wondered how the fox had got in. They are canny creatures, as the hon. Member for Stratfordon-Avon said.
I have made sure, as best as I can possibly manage, that my cats are kept in at night so that they do not get caught by the fox. The fox will certainly go for them if he gets an opportunity. We just have to be aware that the fox is how nature made it, Accommodate it in the way in which we look after our gardens or farms, and make sure that we protect our pets and animals. That is how nature intended it to be, and it is the best way of proceeding.
I shall support option 3 and a total ban, which is hardly a surprise. I shall vote against both options 1 and 2. I hope that all my hon. Friends on both sides of the House on this argument will do exactly the same.

Sir Patrick Cormack: I am pleased to count the hon. Gentleman as a friend, but he has just accepted that foxes do damage. Does he accept that the fox population has to be controlled, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples) said in his admirable speech?

Mr. Banks: There are other ways of controlling the fox population. We should be prepared to live with foxes as a fact of nature, and take the necessary precautions to protect our property and our animals, whether in farming, rural or urban areas. When it can clearly be shown that foxes are a nuisance; and are doing damage, there are alternatives to hunting them. The Burns report made a clear and categorical statement regarding the alternatives, which ought to be closely examined.
I shall vote for the total ban, as I have consistently done, and oppose the other two options. I hope that everyone on my side of the argument will do the same, because there is no middle way. In many ways, the debate is superfluous. We have been round this course time after time. Perhaps we could simply put the matter to the vote and go off and have a decent dinner. Unfortunately, that is not how these matters operate, so we shall just have to go through the motions yet again.
I am opposed to hunting and will support a total ban because, in the end, the issue is cruelty and nothing else. I was fascinated by that well-quoted euphemism from the Burns report, about the welfare of the fox being "seriously compromised". I recently made an involuntary contribution to the unofficial economy in my constituency—in other words, I was mugged. We should be very careful about the use of euphemisms. Hunting is about cruelty, which is why I shall vote for option 3.

Mr. Hogg: It would be helpful if the hon. Gentleman said why it would be right to ban foxhunting on the ground of cruelty, but not to ban pheasant shooting and coarse fishing on the same ground.

Mr. Banks: Exactly the same interventions and arguments are being made, and they will get exactly the same response that I gave when I was asked that question before. A line has to be drawn. There is a difference between angling and hunting foxes, or hare coursing: first, one does not hunt fish with dogs; and, secondly, a decent angler—there are some on this side of the argument; I used to call myself a very good angler—puts the fish back. The better the angler, the less the damage inflicted on the fish. I was a coarse fisherman—as you would expect, Mr. Lord—and I would often, on certain stretches of river and canal, catch the same creature.

Mr. Hogg: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Banks: No, I shall not. That would just take up a lot of time. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is not going to convince me, and I am not going to convince him. I shall answer his question as I have answered those of other hon. Members—straightforwardly.
Angling cannot be compared in any way with foxhunting. There is no intention on this side of the House, or in any of the organisations with which I am concerned, to move on to ban shooting or angling. The Prime Minister has said that, and if one cannot take that—

Mrs. Llin Golding: It is not true.

Mr. Banks: My hon. Friend says from a sedentary position that it is not true. I can tell her that I do not intend to get involved in a campaign to ban angling.

Mr. Paice: rose—

Mr. Brian Sedgemore: rose—

Mr. Banks: I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman. I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore), who represents the rural confines of Hackney.

Mr. Sedgemore: Is my hon. Friend aware that Quintin Hogg, the father of the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), wrote in "The Case for Conservatism":
Conservatives do not believe that the political struggle is the most important thing in life … The simplest of them prefer foxhunting …

Mr. Banks: Like father, like son, is all I can say to that.
One of the points that the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon would not accept is that the argument is not just about foxhunting. In many ways, we have allowed it to be hijacked by the Countryside Alliance and the media. How could anyone, particularly in the Middle Way Group, justify hare coursing? Hares are neither pests nor vermin. They are not vicious, wicked creatures, as has been said about foxes. Why on earth would anyone want to see a hare ripped to pieces for pleasure? I do not understand that—I cannot wrap my mind around it. Why does not the Middle Way Group have an alternative proposal on that issue? It does not even have an opinion on it. We need to remind people about that.
Deer hunting is not mentioned much in these debates—nor is mink hunting. We are talking about cruelty to animals—

Mr. Öpik: rose—

Mr. Banks: Patience.
The debate is about cruelty to animals, not just about foxhunting.

Mr. Öpik: As I have pointed out previously, the Middle Way Group has great concern about hare coursing and, at the prompting of the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice), we included it under the regulatory framework. The hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) will be aware that the secret of effective legislation is not to hide behind false certainties; it is to admit that there are difficult aspects, such as hare coursing, and to attempt to find an equitable solution. We do not claim that we have got it right, but we are at least trying to tackle the issue transparently and openly, and we invite feedback.

Mr. Banks: I have previously said to the supporters of the so-called middle way that we cannot license cruelty—that is what their proposals would amount to. The idea that we should have a licensing regime for hare coursing is to perpetuate complete nonsense.
The hon. Gentleman is right: there are problems. When the Bill goes into Standing Committee upstairs, the whole point of the proceedings will be to eliminate those problems—if, as I suspect, we vote for a complete ban. There are problems. Notwithstanding the obstructions that will, no doubt, be placed before us by Conservative Members or by pro-hunting members of the Committee, we shall have to try to answer serious questions about how the ban will be enforced. I admit that there are difficulties, but the Standing Committee must address those.
Exactly the same arguments were made when the House debated bull baiting. George Canning was very much in favour of allowing bulls to be baited. It was argued that the pursuit was a sport; that it concerned the rights of minorities and of the individual; that the bull enjoyed it—[Laughter.] I do not tell a lie, Mr. Lord—would I do that in this place? The Official Report of the time stated that the bull enjoyed bull baiting and it was a good way of training dogs.
We have heard the same arguments time after time. When we eventually get rid of these terrible blood sports—foxhunting, hare coursing, mink hunting and deer


hunting—people will read these debates and wonder why on earth these barbaric practices were propagated and supported.

Mr. Owen Paterson: Instead of diverting the Committee with bygone days and the cruelties of the urban lower classes—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ooh!"]—would the hon. Gentleman address the question in the Bill as to why it is cruel to hunt a rabbit with a dog but not with a falcon?

Mr. Banks: There are a number of reasons. One point about rabbit hunting is that, quite often, the rabbits get eaten—if not by dogs, by the people who shoot them. That argument is also made about pheasant shooting. I would not go shooting; it is one of the reasons that I am a vegetarian. If one had to kill one's own meat, many more people might convert to vegetarianism—[Interruption.] An hon. Member says that I would not kill a mosquito. I certainly would, because I have never understood why God's great vision of creation had to include mosquitos or wasps. But it did and I do not hesitate to kill them.

Mr. Maples: Would the hon. Gentleman kill a rat?

Mr. Banks: I do not want to make my speech too anecdotal, but my cat, Buzz, brought in a live rat the other night. My wife phoned me while I was in the House to ask me what to do about it and I told her to try to catch it. I got home late—as one does during this current period of modernisation in the House—to find that the cat had brought the rat back again. So I caught the rat alive, put in a tin and tipped it over to next door. I could not bring myself to kill the rat, although I was not prepared to offer it the hospitality of my home.

Mr. David Taylor: Will my hon. Friend confirm to the Committee that he lives next door to the local Conservative club?

Mr. Banks: The rats would have been coming over to my garden if that were the case. No, I do not confirm that; there are no Conservatives in my constituency—or very few.
I was listening to a debate—[Interruption.] I think that that might be my mobile phone. I apologise, Mr. Lord; I forgot to turn it off.

The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael Lord): I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his apology, because we take a very dim view of mobile phones in the Chamber. If Members cannot switch off their phones, they should leave them outside.

Mr. Banks: I can switch off my phone. I inadvertently forgot to do so, but I have done so now, Mr. Lord. Perhaps my neighbours were trying to phone me, having just heard that I put a rat over their fence.
I listened to a series of items on the "Today" programme, and I was moved to complain to its duty producer because I thought that the issue was handled disgracefully. The programme started at 7 o'clock with an

interview from the west country, where a cub reporter was sent to ask patsy questions such as, "Isn't it horrible that these horrible people are doing horrible things?" An individual hunt supporter was interviewed and said, "This is only about animal welfare. It is as simple as that." She said that 20,000 hounds will be killed if the Bill is passed. She used the euphemism, "put to sleep." Why should those animals be killed?
We know that the hunts kill their own animals at the age of five to six because they are not fast enough to keep up with the horses. They kill puppies if they do not show a proclivity for hunting and slaughtering foxes. The nature of those animals is being distorted by the way that the hunts train them to hunt and kill. If that is not a perversion of nature or of the character of noble creatures, I do not know what is. Such things have to be borne in mind.
The hon. Member for Stratford—on—Avon may be interested to know that the animal welfare organisations can find homes for those 20,000 dogs. I am certain of that. The sabs managed to hide 46 beagles the other day, and no one has found out where they have gone. I do not approve of that action, but 46 beagles managed to disappear, so I am sure that decent hunt members who love animals will be prepared to house those dogs, and other people who low animals will do likewise. However, if people go over to drag hunting, they will not have to kill any of those dogs.

Mr. Maples: Finding homes for those animals will be much more difficult than the hon. Gentleman thinks—if not impossible. Can he give the House the assurance, which I sought front the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Mr. Cawsey), that he and Buzz will be prepared to share their home with a foxhound?

Mr. Banks: I will consult my two cats, but I doubt whether they will be prepared to live with a dog. I would love to have a dog, but the life style of Members of Parliament, especially if one is an assiduous Member, is not conducive to keeping dogs in an urban area. That is one of the problems Perhaps I could take a few dogs when I move to a more rural area. I would love to do so because they make wonderful companions.
To return to the "Today" programme, the subsequent interview was with Lord Mancroft, who showed total contempt in his approach to the will of the House, the suggestion being the t whatever we did was irrelevant because the other place will ensure that the Bill goes nowhere. My colleagues on the Front Bench should think about that, because we are the elected Chamber; we represent the majority view, both in rural and urban areas, not those at the other end of the Palace. Frankly, the comments that were made on the programme this morning were disgraceful, but least Lord Mancroft has given notice of what we are likely to face when the Bill leaves the House with a total ban in place. I hope that those on the Front Bench will put such a ban in the manifesto and be prepared to implement the Parliament Acts when, I hope, a Labour Government are returned after the next general election.

Mr. Hancock: I should like to return to the point that the hon. Gentleman made about the way in which hunts look after hounds. He may be interested to know that the New Forest hunt has been manifestly more successful in


killing its own hounds during meets than it has in catching foxes. It has killed twice as many of its own hounds as it has foxes during the past 26 meets.

Mr. Banks: That does not surprise me. The idea that hunt members are kind to their dogs is nonsense. The evidence reflects that. We know how they get killed and maimed, and are put down when they are not good enough or fast enough to keep up with the hunt.
5.30 pm
On the "Today" programme, Mr. Naughtie, who is generally a decent fellow, said to, I think, Lord Mancroft, "Don't the people who hate hunting really hate people like you? Isn't that the gist of it? Isn't that what it's really about?" Several Conservative Members nod in agreement, but it is not about us personally hating people who hunt, but about personally hating hunting. I am sure that some pretty unpleasant people are pro-hunting, but there are probably some pretty unpleasant people who are anti-hunting. We do not legislate on the basis of whether we like people. If we did—my God—we would be working here non-stop, 365 days a year. There are an awful lot of people I do not like, but they are not all hunters.
The hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) is no longer present—it is about half-past five, so it is an early dinner call—but how could anyone hate him? Yet he is passionately pro-hunting, though not himself a hunter—a horse could not be found that was stout enough for him, and shire horses, although stout, are not fast enough. He gives us hours of harmless fun in the Chamber and elsewhere. I confessed in an earlier debate to loving him in—I repeat—a non-erotic way.
The hon. Gentleman was not always against change in the countryside. When he was an Agriculture Minister, he said:
The countryside cannot be preserved in aspic,
to which I said:
If it were you would eat it!—[Official Report, 3 December 1992; Vol. 215, c. 382.]
He certainly recognised that change comes about, and we will ensure that this change happens tonight.
This is not a class issue, and it insults our intelligence, principles and positions to say that t is. There used to be hunts in mining communities. Hare coursing is not a class issue, and I was as bitterly opposed to that practice as I am to foxhunting. Cruelty to animals is my only motivation.
As for the middle way, I checked the Division list and do not understand why its three main protagonists voted against Second Reading. Had they succeeded, we would never have been able to consider their nonsense alternative. What will they do tonight when we vote on the first option? If they support it, they will lose the middle way option. They are deceiving themselves and are trying to deceive the rest of us. When I consider their arguments, I realise that they are just apologists for hunting. That is all they are.
Quite frankly, their arguments will be rejected by anyone who understands the issue end by the country at large—as, indeed, they have been rejected by people who are in favour of keeping hunting more or less as it is in option 1, which allows for self-regulation, and by the Countryside Alliance. I am sure that we shall vote against

the middle way option. Let us get rid of that nonsense and apply ourselves to putting through and making work what the House and the country want—a total ban on hunting.

Mr. Norman Baker: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks). The gain for the Back Benches is the loss of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, where he was the Minister for Sport—although definitely not the Minister for bloodsports.
Since my election as a Member of Parliament in 1997, I have received more correspondence on hunting than on any other issue, and that has continued over the past week or so. The representations have been both for and against hunting. It is clearly an important issue to the constituents of all Members of Parliament, whatever their particular view. It might also be significant to members of the public because we have a free vote, which gives us the opportunity for once to act without the guidance of Whips. Under those circumstances, the vote might be more real than would otherwise be the case. Because the issue is of concern to the public at large and because we are to have a free vote in which Members' votes will count, the onus is on us all to consider the issue properly and to reach a sensible conclusion that will satisfy our integrity.
The Liberal Democrat party is no different from the Conservative party and the Labour party in the sense that we have proponents of all three options sitting on our Benches. It is right that we should do so and right that Members should be able to express different opinions. When the Liberal Democrats discussed the issue at our conference, a majority of delegates were in favour of a complete ban. However, it has always been understood, in the House and elsewhere that we, like the other two parties, will not have a whipped vote on this issue. It is regarded as a matter of conscience.
I support the third option, but I wish to express my cynicism about the timing of the Bill's introduction. There has been a great clamour for legislation on hunting since before the last general election. The implication in the Labour party's manifesto was that legislation would be introduced early, but we had to rely on the courage of the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster) to introduce a private Member's Bill. There was a huge vote in the House in favour of a ban, but the Government took no action. They may be acting now only because the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) encouraged them to do so by the amendments that he tabled to other legislation.
Most Members recognise that—whether people are in favour of or against the Bill—it is unlikely to reach the statute book before the next election. We must therefore ask why the Bill has been introduced at this time. Its introduction is gesture politics, and I am sorry to say that because I strongly support the third option. It is almost an abuse of the House to introduce the Bill knowing that it cannot become law before the general election. It has been introduced not for animal welfare reasons but for reasons of low politics.
However, it is up to each Member to assess the Bill and to reach his or her own conclusions. Like other Members, I have tried to do that honestly and I have applied a personal sequential test to determine my conclusions. I start from the premise from which many other people start. It is wrong to ban things unless there is a very good reason to do so. We simply cannot go round banning everything that we may not happen to like.
The test is whether the damage or harm caused by not banning something is greater than the loss of freedom that will result from a ban. I am convinced that that test is met in this case. Anyone who has seen the evidence of what happens to foxes and hares—hon. Members have been right to make the point about hares—cannot be in any doubt about the barbarity of the hunt and its consequences for the animals involved. It is indefensible to say that hunting should be allowed to continue. In some ways, it is even more indefensible to suggest that it should be licensed.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: The hon. Gentleman is dealing with the issue of cruelty and saying that hunting is barbaric. Many hon. Members hoped that the Burns report would say the same, but it did not say anything of the kind, and nor did the Scott Henderson report under Mr. Attlee's Government. Should the hon. Gentleman not consider the objective view of independent people before he calls for the removal of the rights of tens of thousands of people?

Mr. Baker: The Burns inquiry's terms of reference did not ask it to ascertain whether hunting was barbaric, but the report made it clear that hunting compromised the welfare of the fox. As the hon. Member for West Ham suggested, other methods of dealing with foxes are less invidious.
It has long been established in society that it is right to take into account the impact of humans on animals in deciding whether to legislate. For example, many years ago, we decided as a society to outlaw bear baiting and cock fighting, because they were deemed to be unacceptable sports. Foxhunting and hare coursing are similar in that regard. The principle has been established that, if animal welfare is compromised to such a degree, it is justifiable for a human freedom to be removed.

Mr. David Taylor: I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman's unremitting campaign on animal welfare during this Parliament. Does he agree, however, with the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples), who has now left the Chamber, that on the spectrum of animal cruelty in our society there are many activities that inflict much greater harm than hunting, including the killing of 4 million animals in experimentation and the breeding of 800 million broiler chickens in unimaginable circumstances of dire cruelty?

Mr. Baker: Of course I share the hon. Gentleman's concern about the way in which animals are treated in vivisection laboratories and in some aspects of farming. Sadly, however, we are not faced with a protection of animals Bill that would deal with all those matters in a unified way across Departments. The Bill before us deals with a relatively narrow aspect and we must address ourselves to that rather than to what we would like to see in legislation. I would like wider legislation, and I can press for it, but we are not dealing with that today.
My conclusion was that preventing the suffering of animals outweighed the human freedom that the Bill would remove. I asked myself whether there are offsetting factors that suggest that hunting should be allowed to

continue. The issue of employment has been raised by people in rural areas, not least by those in my constituency, and I am concerned about it. The Burns report said that the number of people whose jobs would be affected had been considerably overestimated by the Countryside Alliance but that is not to say that nobody will be affected, and we should take account of those people in our formulations.
The second factor is whether the impact on the social structure and on people's way of life is such that, notwithstanding the impact of hunting on animals, it is right to protect it because it is so important to those people. I understand that the hunt is the centre of some people's social activities, and that will be removed if the third option becomes law. I will be sorry if that social structure is removed, but the arguments in its favour do not justify cruelty to animals. However, no one has mentioned drag hunting today, and there is no reason why members of a social structure who want to come together to hunt and to go through the associated rituals, such as drinking from the stirrup cup, should not continue to do so. No one is suggesting that such activity should be outlawed; we can have the spectacle without the death. That is a reasonable way to proceed.

Mr. Öpik: To return to the argument about cruelty versus civil liberties, is my hon. Friend rejecting Lord Burns's assessment that in at least some areas, such as upland Wales, hunting with dogs is an acceptable, and probably the most effective, way of controlling the numbers of foxes?

Mr. Baker: My point was about cruelty, and my hon. Friend's point is about control, a matter to which I now turn. I visited my local hunt kennels to talk to the people there. They told me that they catch about 50 foxes a year, which may be an optimistic figure. That would make very little impact on the fox population locally, and we know that nationally only about 5 per cent. of foxes are dealt with by hunts.
Members of the hunt often say to me that they are maintaining the fox population by removing the weakest of the species, so we should be grateful to them. At other times they say that they are removing a pest that causes massive damage. Those two arguments are contradictory, and need to be made clearer. I do not believe that killing 5 per cent. of foxes nationally or 50 foxes in my constituency makes much difference to the number of foxes. The argument about control is a bit of a red herring.
Returning to my hon. Friend's point, there are areas where the argument for control is stronger. That brings me on to the Welsh Assembly and the amendment tabled by Plaid Cymru Members. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where are they?"] They are not present, although I am sure they are watching the debate on the screens in their offices. It is perfectly proper for the Welsh Assembly to take a view on the matter, and I am uncomfortable about this House deciding for Wales what should happen in the uplands. I hope that the Government will accept the amendment.

Mr. Alun Michael: The hon. Gentleman misunderstands the devolution settlement. There is plenty of opportunity for Members of the Welsh Assembly and the Assembly as whole to reach


a view, but it is for this House to take the decision. Indeed, the Assembly Member who represents my constituency has expressed a strong wish that the House should take the decision in a way that makes sense in both England and Wales. Yes, we should listen, but that is different from trying to abrogate responsibility in respect of Wales.

Mr. Baker: I do understand the settlement. However, I suggest first, that the House can, It any time, move on or take a different view if it wants to; and secondly, that that might be appropriate in the current case. If the House passes the amendment, it would be entirely proper for the House to take a view on whether the settlement should revisited in that respect.

Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman has said, and I agree, that we should be careful about legislating for the Welsh uplands. Does he agree that, by the same argument, Members representing Scottish constituencies should not vote on the Bill, which does not apply to their constituencies, but applies exclusively to England and Wales?

Mr. Baker: I am being tempted down a constitutional road that I prefer not to take. I have dealt with the Welsh point as best I can. The Minister answered the point fully and satisfactorily and I should prefer not to delay the Committee by dwelling on it.

Mr. Hancock: is my hon. Friend saying that voting for the proposal tabled by our colleagues from Wales is acceptable to him, and that, although he opposes hunting because it is cruel, he is prepared to see the Welsh allow hunting to continue if their Assembly votes for it? I cannot understand his argument. We have a chance to get rid of hunting in England and Wales, which is what we all want to happen.

Mr. Baker: I make no secret of the fact that I should like hunting to be banned in Wales and everywhere else in the world if possible, but I recognise that devolution is with us. It is entirely proper that people should be responsible for activities carried out in their own area—and not the House, not the Committee, not any hon. Member nor I should try to impose our views on our colleagues in Wales.
We have two substantive options, both of which are intellectually honest; both are held with fervour, and I understand why. One is that hunting should be banned and the other is that it should be allowed to continue. Those are the only options before us today, because, with all due respect to my colleagues, there is no middle way. I am not knocking those proposals—that has been done by others and people can make up their own minds. I think that the proposals are a little threadbare in places, but that is not for me to say. I think that the middle way is a bit of spin—there is no middle way. The proposals might be justified, but they are merely a variation of the option to allow hunting to continue. The choice before us today is between one option to ban hunting and two to keep it. There can be no middle way on matters of principle such as hunting.
I did not manage to intervene on the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington), who has now left the Chamber. He, rightly, condemns those who have broken the law and behaved in a criminal manner towards those

who are engaged in a currently lawful activity, namely, hunting. I do not condone breaking the law to disrupt an activity that remains legal. However, the hon. Gentleman, the Conservative party and others who are in favour of hunting must also condemn those who make remarks of the sort that I heard on "Farming Today" early this morning: that they are hunting now and that, if hunting is banned, they will continue to do so. They argue that it is entirely wrong for those who oppose hunting to break the law as it stands, but that it would be perfectly legitimate for them to break the law if hunting were banned. Their position would be stronger if they pledged to uphold the law both before and after the Bill has been passed.
As for the House of Lords, ours is the elected Chamber. The House has already voted once, by a very large margin, to ban hunting, and unless I am greatly mistaken, it will do so again tonight. It is improper for an unelected House—marginally reformed or not—to try to dictate to our Chamber and tell us what to do during a free vote. I hope that their lordships will think carefully before attempting to interfere with votes in the House of Commons.

Mr. Caplin: I enjoyed the speech of the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker). I did not understand some of it—particularly his logic, to which the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) drew attention.
I spoke in the debate on 7 July on the Burns report. It was a good and constructive debate. For me, the Burns report has clarified two important issues. The first is whether foxhunting is a pest-control issue and the second is about economics, to which the Countryside Alliance has drawn attention on so many occasions. I felt that it was concluded by some that on pest control the Burns report was pretty straight but did not take us forward. The report arrives at the conclusion that foxhunting does not contribute to the control of foxes, and I agree.
Much more important, on the economics of the issue the Burns report torpedoes the arguments that the Countryside Alliance has had us thinking about. In the Committee on which I was pleased to serve and which considered the Wild Mammals (Hunting with Dogs) Bill, introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster) in 1997–98, we heard time and again from hon. Members, some of whom are in the Chamber, about job losses. They were always saying that there would be 16,000 jobs lost, whereas the Burns report refers to 700 or 800 directly related jobs being lost. That is fundamental to the debate.

Mr. Gray: rose—

Mr. Caplin: I thought that would enlighten the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Gray: I, too, served on the Committee that considered the Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster), and we talked a great deal about jobs. Lord Burns concludes that about 7,500 full-time equivalent jobs will be lost, in addition to many part-time and associated jobs. By any standards, the arithmetic produces a total of about 12,000 to 13,000 jobs. That is slightly short of 15,000, the figure which I used repeatedly


in Committee. Job losses will be of the order of 10,000 to 15,000. The arithmetic can be sorted out; to talk about 750 job losses is blatantly misleading.

Mr. Caplin: I have enjoyed these debates for the past four years. I shall give the hon. Gentleman a quotation. The Burns report states that in the short term as few as 700 jobs and a proportion of about 1,500 direct equivalent jobs are supported by hunt-related activities. There will not be 16,000 job losses. The figure is quite clear, and one that it is difficult for the House to ignore.
The purpose of the Committee is to scrutinise each of the three proposals. I shall start in the middle. For some time I have been thinking, "What is the middle way, about which we have heard so much?" Three Members, one from each of the major parties, have put it together. I thought that perhaps they had a case. Perhaps I should give them the opportunity to state it; perhaps they want to state their case. However, they failed because they all voted against giving the Bill a Second Reading. At that moment they ceased to have the right to put their case. They did not want the debate to take place today. The position of the hon. Member for Lewes—I find myself in agreement with the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) on this—is that there are only two legitimate positions. The first is to continue hunting, which many Members who served on the Standing Committee during 1997–98 wanted, and the second is an outright ban. Those are the only two legitimate positions that are credible.

Mr. Öpik: I am trying to understand the hon. Gentleman's logic in being concerned about me and two others voting against Second Reading, and why that makes him sceptical about the content of clause 2. I shall be interested to hear why specifically the hon. Gentleman thinks that clause 2 is an ineffective proposition.

Mr. Caplin: I am happy for the hon. Gentleman to intervene as often as he likes to tell me why he, my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding) and the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) voted as they did on Second Reading, which was to facilitate the current debate. They voted to stop us having this debate. If the hon. Gentleman wants to tell us, we shall all be interested.

Mr. Öpik: There is no secret. We stated at the beginning of the day that, subject to there being a genuine debate on Second Reading, when hon. Members on both sides of the House were present to listen and apparently to be guided by the quality of discussion, we would vote in favour. I promise the hon. Gentleman that we meant that sincerely. At one point during that debate there were 24 Members in the Chamber, and at no point were more than a quarter of all hon. Members present. We thus expressed the objection that we stated clearly on the morning of that debate. If the hon. Gentleman has a different view, I respect that, but I hope that at least he recognises that we were expressing an objection on the basis of principle.

Mr. Caplin: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that apparent explanation. I cannot find in Hansard what

the hon. Gentleman describes. He can try to refer to a column, but he will not find it. The vote of the hon. Gentleman, of my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme and of the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire against Second Reading showed that they did not want this debate. The middle way is just another version of foxhunting.

Mr. Bercow: I understand the vantage point from which the hon. Gentleman is approaching the issue. I richly enjoyed the speech of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard). I do not want to cavil—I respect the good intentions of the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik)—but I put it to the hon. Gentleman that there is an important difference between legitimacy and credibility. Will the hon. Gentleman take it from me that while there are, in my view, only two credible positions—the status quo or a ban—it is wrong to suggest that an honourably held view in support of the middle way is somehow illegitimate? It is incredible, but it is not illegitimate.

Mr. Caplin: I am not sure that I said it was incredible.

Mr. Bercow: The hon. Gentleman said that it was illegitimate.

Mr. Caplin: I meant to say that it was incredible.
I do not understand how we can have two options to maintain hunting and one option to ban it, but that is what we are talking about. The middle way would not ban hunting. When I conclude my remarks, I hope to have explained to the House why there should be a total ban on hunting. That is where I am coming from.
Despite what has been said by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik), I still cannot understand why he, my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme and the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire voted against Second Reading. Once the Bill had received a Second Reading, we were allowed to have today's debate and to take matters forward. I understand the position of the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow). I also understand that of the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), who served on the Standing Committee that considered the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester and who supported us. I understand the position of both the hon. Member and the right hon. Member. However, I do not understand why the Middle Way Group voted against Second Reading, which facilitated the debate. I think that that makes the group's position incredible.

Mr. Öpik: I happen to have the relevant Hansard. I said:
To have an opinion, one must listen to the debate and know what people have said. Few of the hon. Members who will vote on the Second Reading have stayed in the Chamber for much of the debate. At one point, the number in here went down to 25.
I finished by saying:
The Middle Way Group wants, more than anything else, to have a rational, wide-ranging debate in which the hon. Members who go through the Lobby—whether they are for or against the Bill—


at least do so having heard the debate. That does not happen if hon. Members do not turn up.—[Official Report, 20 December 2000; Vol. 360, c. 454.].

Mr. Caplin: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that contribution and clarification. I am not questioning what he said. Instead, I am questioning what he and his temporary hon. Friends, whatever they want to be called, actually did. In effect, they voted against the continuation of the debate in this place and outside.

Mr. John McFall: I am trying to understand the logic of the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik). I still cannot understand why he voted against the Bill on Second Reading. In the past, the hon. Gentleman has been helpful in his comments about the Government's position on Northern Ireland. I have been in the Chamber when there have been two or three Labour Members and only one Opposition Member, but we have passed legislation. The idea that the hon. Gentleman needs a certain quorum in the House is not acceptable. I think that he needs another reason. Will he comment?

Mr. Caplin: If I give the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire any more opportunities, he will be hanging himself, and we do not believe in capital punishment.

Mr. Luff: rose—

Mr. Caplin: I shall try the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire who has just returned to the Chamber.

Mr. Luff: I apologise for not being present; I was serving on a Standing Committee. The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) has a point because it was a difficult decision. I know that it is unusual in the House, but I shall be honest with the hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Caplin). We took the view that to vote for the Bill would be seen by the outside world as a vote against hunting. I make no secret of the fact that I want to retain hunting. A decision was made on the perception of the vote by the outside world. I agree that the intellectual arguments were in favour of casting a vote for the Bill. It was a difficult decision, but I still think that I made the right one.

6 pm

Mr. Caplin: We have finally flushed them out. I have made my point and that is the purpose of the Committee stage. We are properly scrutinising the middle way to determine whether it is a legitimate and credible way to take foxhunting forward. I have not been convinced by any of the arguments that I have heard.
I have faced the Countryside Alliance on a number of occasions.

Mr. Bercow: A fine body of men and women.

Mr. Caplin: They are only men, that is true. In particular, I have seen the Countryside Alliance's performances at Bournemouth, and more recently on the streets of Brighton and Hove during the Labour party conference, which, frankly, were disgraceful. I have asked

the Countryside Alliance why, if it is so concerned about the issue and thinks that it is one about which people are worried, it does not do the democratic thing and put up candidates. It could put up 600 candidates throughout the United Kingdom at the next general election. Let us have some Countryside Alliance candidates. I am sure that the Conservative party would welcome the good democratic debate that that would result in. Talking of which—

Mr. John Hayes: Is the hon. Gentleman seriously telling the House that, in a democracy, the only means of expressing an opinion is to stand for election? There are pressure groups and organisations of every type, fashion and fad, many of them on the left, but they do not all put forward candidates for election. The Countryside Alliance, like every other group, has every right to put its view in a democratic, fair and open way. It ill befits the hon. Gentleman to say that, because it has not proposed candidates for election, it is not a democratic organisation representing the views of many people in Britain.

Mr. Caplin: I have heard some spinning, but that takes some beating. If the Countryside Alliance wants to take part in our democratic process, I am inviting it to put forward candidates for election. Of course there are other ways in a democracy to put forward views, whether they are those of pressure groups or of the Countryside Alliance, representatives of which I have seen at my surgery. I do not understand where the hon. Gentleman is coming from. I simply advise the alliance that, if it wants to be involved in the democratic process, it should put forward candidates at elections.

Mr. Hogg: The Countryside Alliance is involved in the democratic process. In many Conservative-controlled constituencies, it strongly supports the Conservative Members who defend hunting. That is to participate in democracy in Britain.

Mr. Caplin: rose—

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. Before the hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Caplin) responds to that intervention, I should like to bring him back to the clause.

Mr. Caplin: Perhaps, in response, I could be allowed to say that I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his response, which was illuminating.

Mr. McFall: I agree with the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) regarding the Countryside Alliance. One of the issues that should be nailed is that the Countryside Alliance is representative of the whole community. Bob Worcester has undertaken a MORI poll, so we have a ready democratic ear which shows the voting intentions of the Countryside Alliance to be 79 per cent. Conservative, 7 per cent. Labour and 10 per cent. Liberal Democrat.

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. I have just said that I should be grateful if hon. Members would not go down that road.

Mr. Caplin: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point about people's current intentions.
It has been alleged that the Bill presages a move to ban shooting and angling. I would not support such a move. I have been involved in animal welfare campaigns since I have been involved in politics, which is some time now, and I would not support a move to ban shooting or fishing, as some hon. Members and as some in the Countryside Alliance suggest might happen. That is a red herring to distract us from the fundamental nature of this important debate.

Mr. Hayes: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for being so generous as to give way a second time. He said that he is against any move to ban shooting, and at the beginning of his speech he referred to foxhunting as an ineffective means of controlling pests. If foxhunting is an ineffective and not sufficiently ruthless means of controlling a pest, and if he wants to exterminate the British fox population, what means of control does he advocate or recommend?

Mr. Caplin: I made it clear that I supported Lord Burns's conclusions on pest control. I refer the hon. Gentleman to page 89, the relevant quotation from which also appears in my previous speech on the issue at column 548 of Hansard on 7 July.

Mr. Bercow: Read it out.

Mr. Caplin: The hon. Gentleman can read it for himself.
I come now to why people should vote for the third option. I have said that there are only two options on which the Committee should vote—either to support hunting, in which case one votes for option 1, or to ban hunting, which means option 3. No other option is worthy of further consideration, and I hope that the House will reflect on that.
My decision is based on two points. First, during the election campaign, like my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester I made a clear commitment to my electors that, if the opportunity arose, I would vote to ban hunting. When my hon. Friend provided the opportunity I fulfilled that promise, but I was still prepared to say that I would continue to consider the issues, and that is why I made a contribution to the debate on the Burns report. I read the report at least twice and considered the issues, but I still came to the conclusion that the only option is to ban hunting. I came to that conclusion not just because of what I said before the election but, quite simply, because foxhunting, deer hunting and hare coursing are cruel.
I end by telling the House of something which occurred in Sussex over the past few days. Last Saturday, monitors attending the Chiddingfold, Leconfield and Cowdray foxhounds found a fox on which a preliminary report was made before it was passed on to a local veterinary practice for analysis. The preliminary findings state that the
post mortem findings support the conclusion that [the fox] was initially caught by the hind legs. The animal was probably then caught by other dogs that delivered massive bite injuries to the chest and abdomen.
The report continues:
The massive bruising and haemorrhage around the chest and abdominal wounds suggest that this damage occurred before death.

That is that type of cruelty that I want to see ended in Britain. That is why tonight I shall be voting no, no, yes, for an end to cruelty.

Mr. Tony Baldry: We must all recognise that hon. Members on both sides of the argument come to the debate with genuine and heartfelt convictions. Unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples), I am not optimistic that I shall persuade anyone to change their views. However, I want to try to express, I suspect rather inadequately, some of the feelings that exist in the countryside and voices that should be heard here, and some, I suspect, rather inconvenient views, because this is not an entirely logical debate.
I start from this premise. My maternal grandfather and great grandfather were gamekeepers. My great grandfather was gamekeeper to one of my predecessors as Member of Parliament for Banbury. As a Scot, he might have been rather surprised that, although the legislation does not apply to Scotland, Scottish Members of Parliament from Aberdeenshire, whence he came, are entitled to vote on it—but that is another matter.
What I learned from my grandfather and saw as an Agriculture Minister and in my time as a Member of Parliament representing a partly rural constituency, is that, for gamekeepers, farmers and everyone involved in the countryside to succeed, they must be in complete harmony with the countryside. Hunting has been part of the tapestry of English rural life that has evolved over centuries. If one looks at the countryside of Oxfordshire, whether Roman roads or fields made up following the Enclosure Acts, one can see that the landscape partly comes about from the coverts, hedgerows and fences established as a result of hunting. Whether hon. Members like it or not, part of the tapestry of the countryside has come about because of field sports.
If hunting is banned, that tapestry will be lost. Part of the harmony of the countryside will be irretrievably lost, and it will alter. I hope that Government Members accept that if hunting is banned, we will not have a Milly-Molly-Mandy or anthropomorphic Beatrix Potter existence, and we will not have "The Fantastic Mr. Fox" of Roald Dahl. I suspect that, in constituencies such as mine, we shall see the emergence of men in vans late at night with spades, shovels and shotguns controlling foxes. At present, we have a perfectly responsible community of farmers and others who, through the hunts, control the fox population within agricultural and farming areas.
The other thing that has not been fully explained in our debate—although my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon tried—is the fact that this is not a division between town and country; people are not trying to set one against the other. However, hon. Members must try to understand that many people in the countryside genuinely feel that they are being misunderstood and their voice is not being heard. They feel beleaguered, not just in relation to hunting and field sports, but in many other ways, and believe that their way of life is threatened. They are otherwise law-abiding citizens who go about earning a living and making a full contribution to the community, and they cannot understand why what they perceive as urban values will be imposed on them.
I cannot think of an equivalent example in living memory in which the House has sought to impose urban or other values on a law-abiding community in that way.
I understand that some hon. Members come to the issue from an animal welfare viewpoint, and I have listened to their arguments. I also listened to arguments that were made when I was a member of the Standing Committee considering the Wild Mammals (Hunting with Dogs) Bill. However, hon. Members must understand that literally hundreds of thousands of our fellow citizens in the countryside live in harmony with nature and are much closer to nature, day to day, than, with due respect, the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) or others. People in the countryside feel that an alien imposition is about to be forced on them by the House.

Mr. David Taylor: I have lived in a village in the Atherstone hunt territory all my life, and there is not quite the divide that the hon. Gentleman is suggesting in the attitudes of urban and rural residents. I conducted a large-scale survey in my constituency, with a response rate approaching 50 per cent, which shows that there is a majority for the third option presented to us tonight, albeit much smaller than was the case at the time of the Wild Mammals (Hunting with Dogs) Bill in November 1997. Twenty-five per cent. have peeled away into the middle way. The gap between urban and rural attitudes is not all that substantial or significant.

Mr. Baldry: The hon. Gentleman must be entirely insensitive to the sort of countryside march that took place not so long ago during the time of that earlier Bill. I am quite sure that on 18 March we shall probably see nearly 1 million people marching through London to express their concerns.
6.15 pm
The point that I am trying to make is that we should not be insensitive to the views of many of our fellow citizens. There has been a tendency in today's debate and in previous debates to think that the measure can be introduced without deep concerns and a deep sense of hurt in a large part of the rural community, which feels that it is being misunderstood and that its voice is not being heard.

Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend said, correctly, that there is a deep sense of hurt in the countryside and a feeling that the values of people there are not understood. Is that not aggravated by the fact that the constituents to whom he referred see when we debate other issues, such as abortion, where serious ethical questions are raised, and homosexuality, especially relating to persons over 16 and under 18, that those issues are left to the individual to decide, and criminal law—propel in my view—is excluded from those areas?

Mr. Baldry: May I pick up from my right hon. and learned Friend's intervention the point with which I shall conclude?
The Committee must accept that we are seeking to criminalise an activity that has been perfectly legal for centuries. When people are asked if they support field sports—I am referring to the intervention of the hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire (Mr. Taylor) —they may well say that they are not particularly keen on them.

Mr. McFall: rose—

Mr. Baldry: However, when one asks those people whether they think an activity that has been lawful for a long time should be made criminal, attracting criminal sanctions, one gets a completely different view.

Mr. McFall: rose—

Mr. Baldry: I am amazed at the audacity of the hon. Gentleman, who represents a Scottish constituency, in continuing to seek to intervene in an English debate. However, that is another matter.
I hope that those who are in favour of a total ban will recognise that hundreds of thousands of their fellow citizens who, for centuries, have lawfully pursued an activity in harmony with the countryside, feel that we are simply not listening to their voice.
I very much hope that as the Bill makes progress between now and the general election—and probably beyond—all hon. Members will take the opportunity to listen to the countryside, so that the sense of hurt felt by people there does not become a real division in our country.

Mrs. Eileen Gordon: I shall restrict my remarks to clause 3. We are discussing three options tonight, and I am listening to the debate, but as far as I am concerned there is only one option: a total ban.
As my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) said, we have discussed this issue many times in the House and have rehearsed the arguments over and over again. We could say, "Been there, done that and watched the video." Ever since I have known about hunting and understood the issues involved in it, I have detested it and thought it barbaric. The volume of letters that I receive from my constituents supporting my opinion confirms, rather than forms, that view.

Mr. Baker: Does the hon. Lady agree that this does not involve a split between rural and urban areas? In my constituency, as many people are for the measure as are against, whether they are in towns or the countryside. This is not about the countryside versus the towns, but about different opinions, wherever people live.

Mrs. Gordon: Absolutely. I shall go on to speak about that later.
We have had discussions about pest control and have heard what a wonderful example of country life hunting is. I want to concentrate for a few moments on a type of hunting that cannot even pretend to have an excuse: hare coursing. One cannot cry pest control, because the hare is already threatened. The hare population is about 20 per cent. of what it was 100 years ago. Changes in farming methods have led to a decline in the population. In some areas, hares are netted and transported specifically for coursing.
The Waterloo cup is the epitome of everything that I detest about hunting. Hares are beaten out of the long grass and then chased by two greyhounds. When a hare is caught, it is ripped to pieces. An RSPCA inspector who attended hare coursing under cover—he was fearful for his safety—and witnessed many kills described the end of the hare in the following terms:
If both dogs catch the hare, one gets hold of head and the other grabs the back end and they will play tug 'o' war with it. The officials do run as fast as they can to get hold of the injured hare


and kill it to prevent further suffering. But they can take up to 30 seconds, which might not sound a lot, but it is when you are being pulled to pieces.
The Waterloo cup attracts up to 10,000 people over three days. It is a spectacle that people enjoy, but I think that it is obscene.
I do not know whether it is possible for people who enjoy the kill to take part in an alternative sport. In Romford, we have an alternative to hare coursing. Our greyhound stadium employs more than 300 people and has a turnover of more than £1 million a year. About 250,000 people visit the stadium each year. It is possible to provide pleasure without cruelty, and betting without blood. People who go greyhound racing enjoy themselves without having to kill the animals at the end of it. I do not know whether it is possible for those who enjoy the kill to take part in drag hunting, but I believe that there are many thousands of people who would in participate in such activity even though they would not dream of taking part in a hunt.

Mr. Hogg: Is the hon. Lady saying to people who like game shooting that they should confine their activities to clay pigeon shooting? Is she telling those who like angling that they should confine their activities to fishing for corks? If she is not saying that, why does she distinguish between those sports and foxhunting?

Mrs. Gordon: The right hon. and learned Gentleman seems to be obsessed with shooting and fishing, but I cannot see those activities in the Bill. If he does not mind, I shall stick to the provisions about which I am talking.
Many people enjoy riding. The hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples) said that his daughter will now be unable to ride, as she cannot go hunting. I suggest to him that people who do not kill animals, perhaps because they detest the kill, can still ride and enjoy the countryside, as well as the challenge of the drag hunt. I wish that rural people who oppose hunting would sometimes view the introduction of a ban as an opportunity to increase sport and economic activity in the countryside. Perhaps that view is in the realms of fantasy, but, as the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) suggested, many people who live in the countryside would welcome a ban on hunting—

Mr. Hayes: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Gordon: I should like to make progress; my speech is very short.
Many people in the countryside would like a ban and would welcome drag hunting as it would remove the unpredictability of the hunt. For instance, it would prevent the trampling of their farms, gardens and even school playgrounds—there are recorded examples of that. The writer of a letter published in The Daily Telegraph on 3 April 1998 stated:
Most foxhunters I know regard Draghunting as similar to paying for sex—it lacks the uncertainty of the chase.
That is basically what hunters enjoy: the frisson of the kill.
It is said that there is a time and place for everything. This is the time and place to ban hunting with dogs once and for all.

Mr. Lembit Öpik: Three years ago, a small number of Members of Parliament felt that neither a ban on hunting with dogs nor the status quo fairly balanced the values of animal welfare and civil liberties. Those hon. Members established the Middle Way Group. I know, because I was there, and was one of them, together with the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding), the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster) and, at that time, the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey), the Minister for Sport. Interestingly, in the three years since the Middle Way Group was set up, it has been described as a Trojan horse by both of the other lobbies represented in this debate. However, here we stand with a proposal that seems increasingly to resonate with the popular view of the public on hunting.
In December, Channel 4's "Powerhouse" programme conducted an independent NOP poll, which suggested that 48 per cent. of the public supported a ban and that 52 per cent. supported either regulation or supervision. That was a profound change, as it had previously appeared on regular occasions that the ban was supported by an overwhelming majority. The week after that poll was conducted, I participated in a debate with the hon. Member for Reading, West (Mr. Salter) on "Channel 4 News", which subsequently conducted a telephone poll. The next day, it reported that 47 per cent. of people supported a ban and that 53 per cent. supported regulation or supervision. I am wary of telephone polls, but that poll suggested to me that there was some consistency. As 90,000 people phoned in, it was, at the very least, clear that the pro-ban organisations that were trying to marshal their support were unsuccessful in causing an enormous number of supporters to ring in.

Mr. Banks: The "Powerhouse" poll asked whether members of the public would support strict measures of control, which sounds attractive. Unfortunately, however, the Middle Way Group's proposals contain no such measures. In many respects, the public were deceived and continue to be deceived by the middle way proposal. The hon. Gentleman said that the proposal is gaining resonance with the public, even though only a small number of Members of Parliament came together, but how many hon. Members now support the middle way, all these years later? He has given us numbers before, so what are the numbers now?

Mr. Öpik: We are small, as I have said before, but we are perfectly formed. The loss of Alun Michael was a brief disaster for the organisation, but we replaced him. We have never had an enormous resource in terms of people—

Mr. Michael: Will the hon. Gentleman give way, as he mentioned my name?

Mr. Öpik: I said Alan Clark—the right hon. Gentleman is clearly having an identity crisis. [Interruption.] Okay I must have said the wrong thing. Such is the impression that the right hon. Gentleman has made on me in our proceedings. I intended to refer to the late Alan Clark, not to the un-late right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael).
The Middle Way Group has maintained the statutory number of members that is required to make it an all-party organisation. It has done so with small resources.


The hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) asked a fair question in that respect. One of the most surprising things about the group's progress is that it has had very little money and a small team—of course, that team tends to turn up in the Chamber—but has gained increasing public support. Indeed, we heard just tic w about the evolving support in the constituency of the hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire (Mr. Taylor.)
The hon. Member for West Ham made another interesting point about strict regulation. We can argue about whether the Middle Way Group's proposal provides sufficiently strict regulation, but is not such regulation different from a ban? If the hon. Gentleman is now saying that he is willing to discuss regulation, however strict, rather than a ban, the Middle Way Group is at least beginning to make substantial in-roads into a debate that has appeared previously to be a black and white issue. That is testimony to the fact that the debate has never needed to be as polarised and emotive as it has been until now.

Mr. Gordon Prentice: Given that the Middle Way Group had two and a half years to cogitate on hare coursing, why did the manifesto that it circulated to all hon. Members contain no proposals on that activity? What practical differences would the regulatory regime proposed by the hon. Gentleman make to hare coursing? Will he deal with that point?

Mr. Öpik: Yes. If the hon. Gentleman will bear with me, he will hear me explain the detail of the proposal. If he is not satisfied with those comments, I shall happily give way to him again. I point out now, however, that it was he who caused the Middle Way Group to revisit its position hare coursing. We did so for the simple reason that, as he rightly pointed out, we needed to maintain a consistent approach. Indeed, we have welcomed such feedback. Unlike Deadline 2000, which has sometimes failed in this respect, the Middle Way Group has genuinely tried to take on board suggestions, whether they have come from hon. Members, the public or elsewhere. That has been one of our strengths, and has added to the quality of our proposals.
6.30 pm
We are trying to offer a pragmatic solution. We have considered the history of animal welfare legislation and, in that spirit, we are trying to achieve a solution rather than a victory. Option 1 offers a form of self-regulation, which more or less happens now. The hon. Member for West Ham advised us that we should not vote for it. We shall consider his views, and inform him of our decision when we vote. If we do not vote for option 1, the hon. Gentleman can rest assured that, once again, we have listened to a Labour Back Bender. At least Liberal Democrat Back Benchers are listening to Labour Back Benchers, even if no one else is.

Jackie Ballard: My hon. Friend is not speaking for the Liberal Democrats today.

Mr. Öpik: I am sorry. Let me stress that I am speaking on behalf of the Middle Way Group, not the Liberal Democrats. My hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) did that earlier.
On option 3, we understand the aspiration for animal welfare, which we respect. I respect the hon. Member for Worcester, who is not in his place, and the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) because they have a genuine interest in the subject. However, I believe that option 3 will not achieve the desired result. Literature that the League Against Cruel Sports sent out recently described option 3 as,
a decisive opportunity to save animals' lives.
Most assessments suggest that more foxes will be killed in a potentially crueller way if option 3 is accepted. I shall return to that subject later.
We set up our organisation out of anxiety about the proposals by the Countryside Alliance and Deadline 2000. Our proposals are based on four factors. First, all three key organisations accept that, in some circumstances, foxes need to be killed because they are pests. That is crucial. The question is not whether we kill foxes, but how we do it. In that context, we must compare killing a fox by using dogs with the alternative methods. Lord Burns emphasised that point in paragraph 48 of his report.
Secondly, we assume that Lord Burns was correct when he said that killing a fox with dogs was not necessarily more cruel than the alternatives if done according to specific criteria or codes of practice. That finding is at the core of our proposals.
Thirdly, we believe that civil liberties must be taken into account. The difference between the Middle Way Group and the other two organisations is that we attach more value to animal welfare than those who support the Countryside Alliance and more value to civil liberties than those who support Deadline 2000.

Mr. Hayes: Before the hon. Gentleman moves on to consider civil liberties, let me point out that those of us who care passionately about the welfare of wildlife are worried about the alternatives that he describes. Labour Members, especially the hon. Members for Romford (Mrs. Gordon) and for Pendle (Mr. Prentice), seem to have missed the point that shooting, gassing, trapping or snaring are not only cruel but ruthlessly efficient. They would wipe out, for example, the brown hare population in my constituency and throughout Britain. Despite the views of the hon. Member for Romford, that also applies to foxes and the whole integrated wildlife population in the countryside.

Mr. Öpik: As the hon. Gentleman says, passing option 3 will not save the life of a single fox. On balance, the fox population will decline for the reasons that he gave: other ruthless techniques will be used.
Fourthly, we must not legislate on the basis of the motives of those who hunt. We cannot create legislation based on what we believe is going on in other people's heads. I would not make criminals of people simply because I found their motives distasteful. We must focus on the impact of people's actions, not their thought processes. Totalitarian regimes attempt to legislate for what people think. I do not accuse Labour Members who support a ban of attempting to create a totalitarian regime, but their approach is dangerous in a liberal and democratic society.

Mr. Hogg: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we should not outlaw activities on the ground of motive.


Does he also agree that we should not outlaw them because, subjectively, we find them distasteful? There are many activities that we would find distasteful or wrong, but we would not wish to outlaw them through the criminal law.

Mr. Öpik: I voted to equalise the age of consent for that reason, and I believe that we need to show tolerance on other matters. If we legislated on motive, or on finding matters distasteful, as the right hon. and learned Member said, some people would want to ban fishing, shooting, falconry and angling as well as eating meat. All those activities involve pleasure for the human at the expense of the animal. We do not have to eat meat to live; we choose to do it. On other animal welfare matters, enjoyment is not a factor when considering a ban.

Jackie Ballard: Does my hon. Friend support legislation to protect domestic pets and farm animals from deliberate cruelty?

Mr. Öpik: Yes. As my hon. Friend knows, I am keen to ensure that regulation in farming is effective. However, that is regulation. We have not yet banned eating meat in British society. We protect the welfare of the animal even though it is ultimately killed for human enjoyment. We have made that point many times.
The libertarian concept of respecting and honouring our responsibilities to the animal kingdom in a balanced way is at the core of the Middle Way Group proposals.

Mr. Hancock: How will the middle way proposals be policed during a hunt? When the fox is caught at the end of the hunt, how will the cruelty that currently occurs be prevented?

Mr. Öpik: My hon. Friend pre-empts my next point; I was about to describe our proposals.
First, let me deal with the impartiality of the authority.
Our approach towards regulation is strict, clear and authoritative. The proposed regulation is probably stricter than any existing regulation to protect agricultural animals. Our approach is not only fair but transparent. The public can see that it is fair and that its welfare provisions are tough and yet respectful to civil liberties.
Under our proposals, the authority would comprise between seven and 11 members, appointed by the Secretary of State. They would cover various interest groups, including animal welfare representatives, hunters, farmers, landowners, conservationists and veterinary practitioners. At least half the members should have no vested interest in the issue. It may be difficult to find such individuals, but Lord Burns proved that that could be done. As long as they perform their tasks professionally, they will be effective. The chair would also be independent. The members would be appointed for not more than five years and would be in charge of our proposals. The authority would cost the taxpayer nothing, because all individuals and organisations that want to hunt would be charged a licence fee, which would cover the entire cost of our proposals.
The authority would have to submit an annual report to the Secretary of State and ultimately to Parliament. We would therefore be able to judge its effectiveness.
If they did not work, we would return with other proposals. If the Middle Way Group still existed, it would concede that the proposals needed to be changed. The hon. Members for West Ham, for Pendle and for Worcester would be able to say that stronger measures were required. We would respect that. We believe that the annual report will be sufficient to achieve our goal.
The licences are tough. They cover coursing, which I shall mention shortly. However, not only groups but any individual who wants to go hunting with a dog must get a hunting licence, which means a personal financial cost. Such individuals must be at least 16 years old, must not be subject to relevant disqualifications involving offences in terms of our propos and must be capable of securing compliance. Moreover, they must renew their licences each year. It might be possible to apply specific conditions to specific individuals. The authority will have power to change the licensing procedure if it is seen to be inadequate in maximising the animal welfare considerations that the authority is legally mandated to uphold.

Mr. Simon Thomas: The hon. Gentleman is giving the Middle Way Group's proposals the first in-depth examination that they have been given so far today. Has he had an opportunity to read the amendments tabled by my colleagues and me, and has the Middle Way Group had an opportunity to discuss them in the context of the effectiveness—or, certainly, the principle—of allowing the Welsh Assembly its role in the regulation of hunting in Wales in the event of acceptance of option 2?

Mr. Öpik: Let me respond briefly to my friend and neighbour. Personally, I have considerable sympathy with what he has said, but I cannot speak for the Middle Way Group. We have not adopted a position on the matter because we are primarily concerned with regulation. I suspect that our views are different, but we have not discussed the issue—although I shall be happy to discuss it with him later.
Our proposals contain an entire section relating to limitations on coursing, which was mentioned earlier. I am being as honest now as I tried to be in explaining to the hon. Member for Worcester, who is not here now, why we voted again; t Second Reading—as was the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff). We have had problems with the coursing issue, and we are not sure about it. It was not included in our initial proposals—some early drafts leaked out—but we included it subsequently, because we felt that we should be consistent, and we feel that it should be discussed further in Committee.

Mr. Cawsey: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Öpik: I will in a minute—[Interruption.]

The Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. The hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Mr. Cawsey) must wait until concessions have


been made to him before talking over what is being said by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik). I now call the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole.

Mr. Cawsey: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the Middle Way Group has acknowledged that it is presenting a flawed option, which will have to be discussed in a forum other than this Committee of the whole House?

Mr. Öpik: What kind of debate is taking place when a Member who has admitted that an issue in a schedule for which he or she is responsible could benefit from feedback across the Floor receives nothing but superficial criticism, and suggestions that the option is flawed? Whatever position may be taken in tonight's vote, I should like to think that the quality of debate in the Chamber could be higher than that.

Mr. Simon Thomas: rose—

Mr. Öpik: I really do want to make progress.

Mr. Thomas: I want to be helpful.

Mr. Öpik: In that spirit of helpfulness, I give way.

Mr. Thomas: Will the hon. Gentleman remind Labour Members—and, indeed, Members from all parties—that the Government have tabled amendments to their own Bill? They clearly do not consider it to be perfect.

Mr. Öpik: No one questions the suggestion that the Government's position is flawed. The challenge was directed at the Middle Way Group which has a perfect reputation in the Chamber. However, the hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. We want debate The hon. Gentleman can take that or leave it—but it is sad that, despite the close friendship that we have built up during the past few years, he should choose to disrespect me in such a public forum.
There are tough regulations governing hare coursing. They are there for all to see, and written in plain English. I give credit to the officials who have helped us all to ensure that that is the case. The regulations, however, can be made far tighter if that is required, without even changing the schedule involved.

Mr. Gordon Prentice: rose—

Mrs. Gordon: rose—

Mr. Öpik: I must make progress.
6.45 pm
Our schedule demands extensive third-party insurance cover for anyone who obtains a licence. In other words, if someone messes things up he pays the victim, whether trespass damage, injury or emotional distress is involved. We consider this to be a very important part of the Bill.
The authority will have the power to revoke or suspend a licence, and to add, vary, revoke or suspend terms or conditions. Those are wide-ranging powers which, if the authority acts responsibly and listens to advice, it will use to uphold the quality of regulation over the years.
The schedule also deals with inspection, and here I can answer some of the questions about how the system will be regulated. Part of the licence fee will be used to pay for a team of inspectors who will be able to drop in unannounced on licensed hunts anywhere in England or Wales, to check on how individuals are treating dogs or conducting the hunt, or to check on any other aspect of hunting procedures. We expect that to alleviate the enormous burden that would otherwise fall on the police, who would be required to be trained as experts in what they do not currently regard as their field. The schedule also covers the inspection of premises and events and anything else related to hunting with dogs.
There is also a provision on training and examinations. We have not made it mandatory, but we propose that the authority should be able to provide instruction and examination in connection with the obtaining of a licence—although the applicant would have to pay for it. I think that the provision should be implemented, although that too will be a matter for debate. In any event, no other proposed provision on hunting has suggested such a comprehensive requirement for personal qualification.
The provision relating to codes of practice is perhaps the toughest of all. Practices that would be covered by the code include
autumn or cub hunting…digging out or bolting wild mammals which have gone to ground…stopping up earths and refuges…providing artificial earths and refuges…interfering with the flight of a wild mammal during a hunt, and…hunting a hind which is with its calf.
Specific provision is also made in regard to permission from landowners for digging out, and the use of terriers underground.
We would expect some of those activities to be banned by the authority for animal welfare reasons. I remind the Committee that the authority's crucial role is maintaining animal welfare. We will not proscribe them here, however, because we think that if the authority has the right membership it will do its job effectively.

Mrs. Gordon: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Öpik: I want to finish my speech now.
Our provision on offences covers prohibited hunting, unlicensed regulated hunting, hare coursing and the giving of false information. The penalties are severe: in some instances, a fine of £5,000 may be imposed—level 5 on the standard scale. There is also provision on search and seizure. The police can become involved here if they are required to, perhaps on the request of an inspector. A constable may stop and search a
vehicle, animal or other thing
associated with hunting. I am not sure how one searches an animal or other thing, but the provision is there.
The provision on disqualification is equally strict. Page 15 contains the strongest disqualification of all: an order can specify the duration of a prohibition, which could last for the length of someone's life. We consider ours to be a powerful and robust set of proposals, although that is for other Members to judge.
I want to end by responding to some of the key objections that we have heard. One is, "You cannot compromise on cruelty". Option 3, however, allows rats to be hunted with dogs, which is clearly a compromise. It is not possible to be absolutist: there must be a balance, even in option 3.
Some say that our proposals are unworkable, but we regulate activities ranging from fishing to the use of laboratory and food animals, and from that to the treatment of household pets. People do breach the code, but by and large it works. Others say that our proposals would not get rid of the cruelty. Is anyone seriously suggesting that the alternatives are not cruel? Something that kills us will certainly compromise our welfare. As Deadline 2000 has said, shooting with a rifle is the best way, if it is done correctly, but often a shotgun will be used and may merely wound the fox. The death would be a much more painful death than under the Middle Way Group proposals.
What is barbaric? Again, that is a judgment call. It goes back to the cruelty debate. Fishing could be regarded as barbaric. I have never understood why reptiles are excluded when mammals are included in the ban. Why not protect cold-blooded organisms as well, not least because some in the Chamber would probably benefit?
The accusation is often made that we are funded by the Countryside Alliance and that we are a stooge for the other group. Yesterday, in The Guardian, there was an advert which we found out would cost £16,275 under normal prices. That one advert, which criticised the Middle Way Group, cost more than twice the group's entire budget in the past three years. We have achieved resonance with the public not by buying it, but by talking to people and trying to win the arguments, as we have here.
I have tried to put forward the case as the Middle Way Group sees it. Just because it does not go as far as a ban does not mean that all its supporters are pro-hunting. That point seems to have been lost in the debate. The real aim should be to improve animal welfare, not ban hunting and substitute it with methods which in some cases are worse.
None of the options is perfect. We may have some way to go on hare coursing, for example, but we believe that the Middle Way Group option is the most workable. It keeps landowners onside and does not criminalise individuals who sincerely believe that they are doing nothing wrong.
The debate on Second Reading caused us to vote no, for reasons that we described earlier. We are concerned that some people still feel that it is all or nothing. Today's debate is a chance for us to think about our responsibilities to animals and to people. Whether we do well will be a test of the quality of the House and its ability to listen.
I used to support a ban, but I have found a better way, even though the League Against Cruel Sports has told me many times that it is not a vote winner in my constituency. Perhaps others can, too. Doing the right thing is not always the easy option, but in the name of common sense and liberty I ask hon. Members to choose the right route, not the easy one. In our judgment, the best way to resolve the matter is through the middle way.

DEFERRED DIVISIONS

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I now have to announce the results of Divisions deferred from a previous day.
On the motion on the establishment of the Human Rights Joint Committee, the Ayes were 486, the Noes 3, so the motion was agreed to.
On the motion on the membership of the Human Rights Joint Committee, the Ayes were 487, the Noes 2, so the motion was agreed to.
[The Division Lists are published at the end of today's debates.]

Hunting Bill

Question again proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Bill Etherington: I appreciate being allowed to speak in the debate. I had to be absent for quite a time because I was on a Standing Committee.
The Minister stated categorically that there had been a lot of time to discuss the issue. It is not a new issue that has suddenly arisen. Debate on it has continued for many generations. I shall m make my remarks in the light of that. Most hon. Members do not have closed minds and have reached a conclusion having spent a bit of time looking into it. We will have differences of opinion; that is only natural.
The latecomer in the issue is the clause 2 option from the Middle Way Group. It reminds me of a device that I have seen from time to time in elections: a ringer. For those who do not know what that is, when someone appears to be a favourite and another appears to have a rather poor chance a third person is brought in to create the right amount of confusion. Sometimes, the favourite can be overturned and the non-favourite elected because there is a so-called compromise among votes.
I shall vote against clauses 1 and 2 because they are not very different. I shall vote in favour of clause 3. There are several reasons for that. Since I was at school, I have found foxhunting abhorrent. It may suit some hon. Members to say that they do not like the word "barbaric". We all have different ways of expressing ourselves and we do not always mean quite the same thing when we use the same word. I consider foxhunting to be as barbaric a method of destroying a fox as it is possible to imagine. What makes it even worse is that I find it impossible to understand how, in the name of sport, human beings can entertain themselves by their cruel destruction of an animal, as happens with foxhunting.
It goes further. It is not just a matter of lack of concern for animal welfare. I am as concerned about animal welfare as any hon. Member. It is very important and it is part of the foxhunting issue, but there is a more important issue: where human beings involve themselves in a barbaric practice, they demean the human race. The way in which animals such as foxes are treated with contempt can spread. A philosophy can grow whereby some human beings think that it is all right to treat other human beings in the same manner.
I have no doubt that some hon. Members will accuse me of being immoderate in my views. People are entitled to be in favour of foxhunting, but they are not entitled to impugn the motives and will of others who oppose them. They shout loud and long about how they are not understood. I think that they are well understood. The fact that people do not


agree with them does not mean that they are not understood. It means they have concluded that they totally disagree with the practice. That is the issue.
The argument about town and country is ludicrous. I have lived most of my adult life in the country, although I represent a city constituency. I do not detect much difference in people's opinions. I have not had one piece of correspondence or representation from a constituent in favour of the clause 1 option, out of about 70,000 voters. Numerous people have made representations asking me to vote against foxhunting. I do not know why they bothered. If they had followed the publicity closely, they would know that that was what I was going to do.
I hope that the argument will end. I hope that we start to end it tonight. I felt sorry for my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster). He secured a satisfactory vote for his private Member's Bill. The Government did not deign to send the matter to the House of Lords. A bit of a legend has built up that it was defeated by the Lords. I do not know how that has come about, but I have read that in several places. Suffice it to say that I know that it is untrue. It does no one any credit.
As and when we vote in favour of clause 3 tonight, as I think we will, may we have an undertaking from the Government that they will take the Bill forward on our behalf to the House of Lords and tell it that, if it does not act properly and democratically, as we will have done tonight, the Parliament Acts will be invoked and the Bill will be brought back here? That is what people outside are looking for.
When our constituents and voters were given an undertaking that there was to be a free vote, they did not understand the niceties of this place. They did not understand that that could be a promise that meant nothing. They thought that it would be part of a sequence of events to help to bring about the end of foxhunting.
I do not want to hear a lot more about the fact that a minority are being oppressed. There is no oppression of a minority where a majority decides to use that majority to change legislation. I have no doubt that when legislation was introduced to abolish slavery, slave traders said that their personal rights and freedoms were being eroded. I know that we heard the same arguments from coal owners when children were prevented from working underground in the mines. The principle is the same.
The minority has to understand that, in a democracy, a majority prevails. If a majority does not prevail and a minority is allowed to prevail, we will have something that is very close to anarchy. In a democracy, one cannot be asked to be left alone when a vast majority of people do not agree with one's activities If the majority does not prevail, everyone can do as they wish and that would be the end of it.

7 pm

Mr. David Taylor: I am grateful to my good Friend for giving way. However, he is not saying, is he, that an activity should be prohibited in legislation because a majority disapprove of it? Do we not need a stronger reason for prohibition? I disagree with and disapprove

strongly of boxing and smoking, for example, but I not think that either should be prohibited in legislation. Do we not need a stronger reason?

Mr. Etherington: I believe that strength lies within the population. We want to ban foxhunting not because a majority of people dislike it, but because a majority want it to be abolished.

Mr. Peter Atkinson: What about hanging?

Mr. Etherington: I can think of quite a few candidates for that. However, as I do not believe in hanging, I shall have to divest myself of that particular pleasure—just as foxhunters will have to divest themselves of their pleasure.
It churns my insides to think that people can get enjoyment out of seeing an animal torn limb from limb. It is absolutely appalling. As a nation, we have quite a good reputation around the world on animals. However, it is perhaps wrongly thought that the United Kingdom is full of animal lovers. Although I wish that that were correct, it seems that many people in this country who love their own animals have no time for anyone else's animals. So, that reputation is not quite true.

Mr. Richard Livsey: The hon. Gentleman has been talking about a majority who are anti-hunting. However, as he well knows, recent polls have shown that the reverse is true—that people are willing to tolerate hunting. In many cases, particularly in farming, people wish to protect their own animals, which they look after very well, from foxes.

Mr. Etherington: Different polls will always give different results and there will be fluctuations. However, over a great many years, a majority of the public have stated that they abhor hunting with dogs, and that is good enough for me. I remember that, not so long ago, a national poll showed that the Conservative party was in the lead. However, we all knew—even Conservative Members knew—that that was just a blip. I suspect that the fluctuation that the hon. Gentleman mentioned is just the same.
Several hon. Members have asked whether we are legislating to criminalise people. Legislation does not criminalise anyone; people criminalise themselves by ignoring that legislation. If people believe in democracy and the rule of law—we are signed up to, for example, the Council of Europe and the United Nations charter on human rights—and if Parliament, using parliamentary procedure, bans foxhunting, as I sincerely hope it will, we should expect everyone to fall into line.
I have had to fall into line with legislation that I did not much like. At such times, I had a choice: fall into line, or stand by my principle, break the law, as was my privilege, and be dealt with accordingly. However, the consequence would be the result of my own choice, not the fault of those who passed the legislation. Therefore, we should not be talking about criminalising people.
I hope that this will be an historic day. About eight and a half years ago, not long after I was first elected to the House, I was asked what single change would give me the most satisfaction in politics, and I said, "The abolition of foxhunting." I think that we are quite near that goal.


The desperation of impending defeat has led to the creation of the Middle Way Group, so that it could cause confusion. That group did not exist 30 years ago, but was created only recently, when the issue became the flavour of the month.

Mrs. Golding: I shall forgive my hon. Friend for suggesting that I am a ringer and that I do not stand up for what I believe in. No one puts me up to anything. He has been talking about foxhunting, but the legislation encompasses rabbit hunting and all other forms of hunting. The only hunting that will be allowed is hunting for rats on one's own ground, in one's own garden. Therefore, all those terriers belonging to the miners about whom he cares so much will not be allowed out to hunt for foxes, rats or anything else. What does he feel about that? Is he as passionate about that?

Mr. Etherington: My hon. Friend mentions my regard for miners, but my record in standing up for miners is second to that of no hon. Member. I should think that that is indisputable. However, my great regard for miners does not require me to agree with every single one of their activities. It would be a little ridiculous if she were suggesting that I should let miners do whatever they wish because I like them.
I also did not accuse my hon. Friend of being a ringer. I said that the tactics being used by the Middle Way Group reminded me of electoral tactics involving a ringer. Then I defined a ringer. I did not suggest that anyone was a ringer or that anyone involved with the Middle Way Group was a ringer. I hope that my hon. Friend is clear on that.
I have said enough and I feel happy now. This is the first opportunity that I have had to speak on the subject, which is somewhat surprising to me if to no one else. I hope that we shall make some progress. I also hope that we can bring the United Kingdom into the 21st century on the issue. Hunting is more reminiscent of 14th and 15th century activities than of current ones.

Mr. John Townend: I am rather worried about the hon. Gentleman's prospects. However, it was rather refreshing to hear him admit that the Prime Minister, who went on television to say that the House of Lords had defeated the Foster Bill, had committed a terminological inexactitude.

Mr. Etherington: On a point of order, Sir Alan. The hon. Gentleman is totally wrong; I did not say that. I said that it came from some source.

The Chairman: Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman must know that that is not a matter for the occupant of the Chair, but a matter for debate. I remind the Committee that we are rapidly losing time, and that I am trying to get in as many hon. Members as I can.

Mr. Townend: I should also think that the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Etherington) might be in danger of being classed as politically incorrect by comparing slaves with foxes.
I approach the debate from the point of view of one who has never hunted, fished or shot. However, the force that drove me into politics was a passionate belief in and

love for individual freedom. In the late 1940s and 1950s, when I first became involved in politics, individual freedom was being undermined continuously by the rampant progress of socialism and the increase of state control.
As the hon. Member for Sunderland, North said, in a democracy, the majority will usually prevail. There is, however, one caveat. It is very dangerous if a majority try to legislate to remove a minority's right to partake in pastimes and pleasures that do not affect anyone else. When that happens, democracy becomes tyranny.

Mr. Gerry Steinberg: According to the hon. Gentleman's argument, he should believe in an individual's freedom to do as he or she likes. Did he believe that badger baiting should be banned?

Mr. Townend: There is a great difference between badger baiting and foxhunting, as badger baiting contained no element of pest control. It was in an entirely different class. As I said, however, we are debating foxhunting. Although I have reservations about hare coursing, I want to talk about foxhunting, as that is what really affects my constituents and I have a couple of hunts in my constituency.
Both today and in our previous debate on the Bill, Labour Members have claimed that those who oppose a ban on foxhunting are a minority in the countryside. I contest that, and suggest that those hon. Members should study the numbers who will come to London for the freedom march. I should be very surprised if those who feel passionately about banning foxhunting could get an equivalent number of people from the countryside to demonstrate. That is very unlikely.
We are told, rightly, that we must respect the customs of the minority. Our country has been turned from a homogenous English nation into a multicultural, multi-ethnic nation. We have accepted that ethnic minorities have a right not be forced to integrate but to have their own culture. Indeed, under the law we allow the barbaric system of ritual killing known as halal slaughter, even though it undoubtedly causes suffering to the animals killed, who have a long and slow death. I suggest that the suffeting of those animals and the number of animals involved are far greater than the number and suffering of hunted foxes.

Mr. Hogg: When I was Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals made representations to me about halal slaughter. I said that in many respects I found the process distasteful, but mat it seemed wrong to prohibit it under the criminal law simply for that reason. I therefore declined to act. That is the course of action that people should take.

Mr. Townend: I agree entirely. I find that form of ritual killing rather abhorrent, but I understand the culture and history of the people involved, and believe that we must be tolerant. It is very strange that Labour Members who are so keen that we respect and tolerate the cultural rights and beliefs of minorities should now propose to destroy part of the culture and freedom of the countryside.
I am amazed that those who favour banning hunting are not prepared to extend the same tolerance to minorities of their own countrymen, the English and the Welsh, who


want only to continue the traditional country sports that they and their forefathers have enjoyed for centuries. I suggest that that is a flagrant example of double standards.
Many Labour Members consider most people who hunt to be toffs. Those of us who live in the countryside know that that is not true. The vast majority of people who hunt are ordinary people. However, if the majority of people who hunt belonged to minorities—if they were coloured people or homosexuals—I suggest that the Bill would never have been brought before us. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."]I think that I make the point very well. I am in favour of the rights of minorities, but Labour Members are not in favour of the rights of the people of the countryside.
I am fortunate to live in the countryside, although I was brought up in a city. We townies have a duty to respect the traditions and way of life of those who have lived in the countryside for generations. I suggest that most people who live there and who oppose hunting came from the towns. They live in the new estates in the villages, and are not countryside people, born and bred.
There is a crisis in the countryside. Farming is in an appalling state, and people's incomes have fallen dramatically. It is unbelievable that we should be doing so little to deal with the real problems of the countryside, where many people's livelihoods are being destroyed, yet are prepared to destroy a pastime that is part of the countryside's social fabric. There is no doubt that that will have some economic effects.
It is worrying that people say that 16,000 jobs lost might pose a problem, but that only 7,000 or 2,000 jobs will be lost. The problems faced by people who lost their jobs would be equally great, however many of them there were.

Mr. David Taylor: Will the hon. Gentleman regale the Committee with details of the level of his opposition to the loss of jobs in rural coalfields that happened under the Administration that he supported in past Parliaments?

Mr. Townend: I do not want to go into the question of coal, but I certainly strongly supported the proposals of my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) to save a number of our pits. [HON. MEMBERS: "Save?"] My right hon. Friend saved them in the short term. I do not think that the record of this Government has been particularly good in that respect.
Labour Members dismissed this point earlier, but I firmly believe that if hunting is banned tonight, many people in the anti-hunting camp will move on to shooting. That would be logical. They will then move on to fishing. I suggest that one of the reasons Labour Members deny that is that many Labour voters take part in fishing.
There is a lot of hypocrisy in the Chamber tonight. Those who speak so passionately about the cruelty of hunting do not seem to appreciate that foxes are vermin that must be controlled. There is no doubt that foxes will suffer more if they are killed not by dogs but by shooting. Death by shooting is not always clean. Wounded animals can crawl away and take days to die of gangrene.
I was recently given a snare—a horrible item that gets tighter around an animal's body the more it struggles. It is an appalling instrument, but it is legal. The suffering of foxes will be even greater if hunting with dogs is banned.
Shooting causes a great deal of suffering. At a pheasant shoot, 500 birds can be downed in a day. That compares with the one or two foxes killed in a hunt, and not all the birds are killed instantly. In fishing, the poor fish gets a hook stuck in its throat. It is then played—tortured—before it is taken out of the water. The hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) said that he was a good fisherman and very gentle, but fish are thrown back into the water for the torture to recommence. There is much talk about the need to return to nature. However, we must never forget that man, by his very nature, is a hunter.
Who will enforce the law if this Bill is passed? The police will, of course. The country is very short of police. Rural crime has been rising. I do not accept the argument that the amount of police time at present spent dealing with the thugs who are anti-hunt demonstrators will equate to the amount of time needed to enforce a hunting ban.
We are proposing to turn tens of thousands of people into criminals. What they are doing is at present within the law. We will be telling them that their pastime will be turned into a criminal act. The inevitable result would be a massive loss of support for the police in the countryside. That would be very dangerous.
I was among those who passionately opposed the incorporation of the Strasbourg human rights regime in British law. It is ironic that whatever the Committee decides will probably be overruled on the ground of human rights.
To people who disapprove of hunting I say, "Don't do it, but for goodness sake don't take away the individual freedom of those who want to do it." Over the generations, many people have fought and died for that individual freedom.

Mr. McFall: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate. I shall be brief. Some people have spoken about Scottish Members voting in Westminster. To vote here is my constitutional right as a political unionist: if anyone can prove to me that it is not my right, I shall not vote. However, no one will be able to do that.
I have taken part in the foxhunting debate since the early 1990s, and I presented a private Member's Bill—the Wild Mammals (Protection) Bill—in 1995, which was approved by 253 votes to zero. It was about animal welfare and sought to update the Protection of Animals Act 1911, which protected domestic animals but not mammals. The opponents to hunting killed that Bill eventually in the House of Lords because of one word—"torture". They said that, if that word was in the Bill, they could be charged by the police. In that action, they illustrated the weakness of their argument.
Thankfully, the issue was taken up the next year by my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale). The Wild Mammals (Protection) Act 1996 is part of a rolling process of reform of animal welfare in this House. I shall gladly vote tonight for the third option.
There are a number of issues here. It is argued that banning hunting is an attack on the countryside. I mentioned my Bill; in 1995, I received 12,000 letters on the subject. Other right hon. and hon. Members had between 750,000 to 1 million postcards and letters sent to them. I had many, many responses from those in the countryside. Indeed, there was a group known as Conservatives for the McFall Bill—I was scared that they


would abridge the name to Conservatives for McFall. I had many communications from Conservative supporters living in the countryside. The idea that hunting is a social activity associated with the countryside and loved by those in it is exaggerated. I do not rest on anecdotal evidence for that statement, but on the polls and statistics.
A MORI poll has been undertaken over the past few years in a rolling programme. MORI has indicated that 75 per cent. of those living in rural communities do not consider hunting to be an important part of daily life. The number is similar with regard to hunting with dogs. Indeed, the ratio of country people supporting a ban on fox hunting is 2:1. That tells us about rural dwellers.

Mr. David Taylor: I have conducted a large survey in north-west Leicestershire, a hunting county, which shows that in the rural areas there is still sizeable support for the abolition of hunting, but that 25 per cent. of those polled have been attracted by the middle way option, which has been expounded this evening. Thus the poll to which my hon. Friend refers may not be entirely up to date.

Mr. McFall: I think that the research that my hon. Friend conducted and the Burns report research were conducted in hunt communities. There is support for hunting in rural areas with hunting communities, but that is concentrated around the hunt. In the countryside in general, people support the hunt ban by two to one.

Mr. Öpik: The hon. Gentleman is aware of the two polls in December that I and others cited, one for "Powerhouse" and another for "Channel 4 News". Both showed that 47 to 48 per cent. of people were in favour of a ban and 52 to 53 per cent. were in favour of regulation or supervision. Those are national polls, and they go against the figures that the hon. Gentleman quotes. We can play games with polls, but the hon. Gentleman must recognise that there is no longer unequivocal support for a ban in the United Kingdom.

Mr. McFall: I take the hon. Gentleman's point. However, the Channel 4 poll was conducted over the telephone, whereas MORI conducted a statistical poll over a rolling period, so statistically it is more accurate. It concludes that rural dwellers nationally are not pro-hunting, not at odds with urban dwellers over the most important issues and, indeed, not predominantly Conservative voters. In fact, more are Labour voters.
The anecdotal evidence presented to me in 1995 shows that the hunt is disruptive and disturbing. There is a romantic notion that, when hunting, people are at peace with the countryside. However, it is disruptive to people, socially and personally. The RSPCA has come up with numerous cases which they describe as "hunt havoc". I shall give an example. There was an incident in 1998 in which the hunt concluded in a local children's play area. The dogs tore into the fox and ripped him apart in front

of children just let out from school. As the grandmother reporting the incident commented, the children involved were terrified. She said that dogs,
most of them covered with blood … were running riot through the children's play area … and the poor school children were fending off the dogs with their satchels.
That is the reality of hunting in rural areas. The image of urban versus rural society is entirely imaginary.
There is a resonance between urban and rural voters. Again, the MORI poll indicates that the 10 most important issues faced by rural constituents are the same as for urban constituents. The first seven are—in order—transport, environment and pollution, conservation of wildlife, infrastructure and improving roads, crime and law and order, unemployment and education. Those are the same issues that the urban voter is interested in, and the Government are tackling them. The poll indicates that the term, "the country way of life" is recognised by less than 2 per cent. of the people.
The hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Townend) spoke about foxhunting as a necessary form of pest control. Statistics show that about 3 to 5 per cent. of the fox population is killed by hunting. More are killed on the roads. The Burns report found that foxhunting makes only a minor contribution to the management of the fox population. If the issue is reducing the numbers, why do some hunts create artificial breeding grounds, even providing dead chickens and sheep for food? There are more humane methods, such as lamping. Another is confined to Scotland. Under the Deer (Scotland) Act 1959, the deer population is reduced on a yearly basis by shooting. I am not against shooting. It is very important that, if foxes have to be controlled, there is another way of controlling them.
The nub of the issue is that those who participate in foxhunting regard it as a sport. I do not deny them their social activities, which is why I advocate drag hunting. Let me give some more anecdotal evidence. I had dinner at Christmas time with an individual who is a foxhunter and a gamekeeper. The gamekeeper said, "Yes, John, people go foxhunting because of the chase—the thrill." The person who went foxhunting said, "Quite frankly, it is a good sport."
It is a sport that is and has been unacceptable to the House for many years. I thought that it would have been outlawed by 2000. We are not lucky enough for that to have happened yet, but I, along with other right hon. and hon. Members, want to ensure that next year, or the year after, we get rid of this barbaric sport. If we do that, we can consider ourselves and our country more humane.

Mr. Paice: This has, in general, been a good, unemotional debate on an issue that arouses huge emotions. The emotions shown this evening have run less high than they did on Second Reading, when we heard some quite intemperate language. I want to address the issue in a cool and reasoned way.
It is important for Members of Parliament not be swept along by emotion, but to stand back and address the issue logically and rationally. I shall not go into the various polls that have been undertaken, because whether a majority is in favour of a particular action is not relevant. It is not relevant how small the minority is. What really matters is whether it is right for the House to take the action that is being suggested, and we must assess that logically and rationally.
7.30 pm
I came into Parliament with relatively few cardinal principles other than the ones that my party stands for, but I passionately believe in the right of individuals to live their lives and to accept the responsibility of being in charge of their lives, and everything that goes with that. Yes, there are times when the state, represented by this House, seeks to curtail the freedom of individuals, but every time that we do that, we have a responsibility to ensure that we intervene only where it is clearly justified—usually because an action affects the freedom of other individuals to live their lives. The presumption should always be on the side of personal liberty. Anyone who seeks to restrict that liberty must prove their case.
It was said many times on Second Reading, and one or two hon. Members have said tonight, that this is not a civil liberties debate. Of course it is. Any debate about legislation that restricts an individual's liberty is a civil liberties debate. The question is whether that restriction is justified. Having read the Burns report carefully, I do not believe that the case is made for that restriction.
The statement in the Burns report that hunting compromises the welfare of the animal is often quoted. That is obvious and does not need saying. It is self-evident that the individual animal's welfare is compromised. I want to look more widely and take into account the interests of the species. I believe passionately that banning hunting would damage the welfare of the species as a whole, even if hunting obviously involves the death of individuals.

Mr. Gordon Prentice: How does it help a declining hare population, which was mentioned in the United Kingdom biodiversity plan drawn up by the Conservative Government, if we allow people to kill the hare for sport?

Mr. Paice: The answer is clear. Coursing takes place only in areas where there are hares. As I shall explain later, I believe that the hare population is better served on estates and in areas where coursing takes place than where it does not.
In support of my comment about the welfare of the species, I want to quote the Burns report. I know that it is easy to find bits of the report to quote in support of our case. On page 14, Burns says clearly:
It follows that the welfare of animals which are hunted should be compared with the welfare which, on a realistic assessment, would be likely to result from the legal methods used by farmers and others to manage the population of these animals in the event of a ban on hunting.
That demonstrates to me that the issue of the welfare of the species is vital.
As other hon. Members have said, no lives would be saved, especially in the case of foxes, by banning hunting. The hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) said that only 3 or 5 per cent. of the total fox kill in a year is by hunting. That does not matter to me. The fact is that foxes will still be culled even if hunting is abandoned. The issue is how they are killed.
Although Burns says that lamping is perhaps the most efficient method, he also says that that is so only if it is carried out by an efficient marksman and in ideal conditions, which do not often arise. I have been involved in lamping and the fact is that a fox can move just at the moment the marksman pulls the trigger. The marksman may be able to shoot bull after bull on a range, but if the

animal moves just at the instant that he pulls the trigger, no marksman in the world can ensure that the animal is not wounded. That is using a high-powered rifle. If people use shotguns, as many do, few foxes die instantaneously. I have seen many of them shot in that way and it takes a few minutes or, sadly, several days for the fox to go away and die.
There is clear evidence that, were stag hunting to be banned, the deer population would suffer drastically. The only reason why farmers and landowners in the Quantocks and elsewhere allow large populations of deer on their land is for hunting. There is clear evidence that, if there were no hunting, they would shoot out those populations, and deer overall would suffer.

Mr. Swayne: I have received representations from constituents about what they regard as excessive deer culling by the Forestry Commission in the New Forest. Two years ago, the New Forest Buck Hounds shut their doors. They never dispatched many deer, but they dispersed the deer population throughout the forest. Now the deer congregate as far from the tourists as they can, in the most remote enclosures. That is precisely where the Forestry Commission estimates that they do the most damage—hence the determination to reduce the population.

Mr. Paice: My hon. Friend is right. His intervention endorses the point that I was making.
The hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) referred to the hare, the third most commonly hunted species. On estates that allow legal coursing meets to take place—obviously, I am not referring to the countless illegal operations that sadly take place in parts of the country—almost without exception the landowners husband and conserve the hares. The hares are coursed on a small number of days, depending how many meets there are, but even then the majority get away. On average, only between one in eight and one in ten are killed. Thus the welfare of the hare population is better on an estate that allows coursing.

Mr. Hayes: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Paice: I would rather not. I have a lot to say and I know that other hon. Members wish to speak, Sir Alan—[Interruption.] I apologise, Mrs. Heal. I was not facing the Chair; otherwise, I would obviously have noticed the difference.
The debate is not about cruelty per se. As other hon. Members have demonstrated, the House could address issues involving far greater cruelty and bring far greater benefits to animal welfare. Religious slaughter has been mentioned. The hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) referred to his cats. Cats are responsible for far more death in the countryside than foxes or humans, yet no one suggests banning cats. The difference is not the pain felt by the victim. I suggest that the pain, however one defines it, felt by the victim of a cat is no different and is probably worse than the pain felt by the victim of a hound. The difference is that, in the case of the hound and its quarry, people are involved and watching.
The real issue is what people should be doing and whether it is right for people's souls for them to, as some have suggested, enjoy inflicting cruelty. I believe that that is wrong. We have heard many spurious reasons for


banning hunting. Some people say that hunters are unpleasant people. The hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster) read out articles from his local paper. I am the first to accept that I find some people who go hunting obnoxious. There are people in every walk of life whom I find obnoxious, and I have no doubt that there are people who find me obnoxious.

Mr. Robathan: No, no.

Mr. Paice: It is very kind of my hon. Friend.
That is not a reason for stopping people doing what they want to do. The hon. Member for West Ham said that no one was criticising people who go hunting. If he read some of the correspondence that I receive, in which hunters are accused of being twisted and wicked and all sorts of evil people, he would take that back. We have even heard about red coats and pink coats. I do not care what people wear. It does not affect the issue of whether hunting should be banned.
A question that has often been asked in debates on the issue over the years is, "How would you like to be chased and torn apart by hounds?" Of course, the answer is that I would not like it, but nor would I like anything else about the life of a fox, a hare or even a deer. I would not want to live in a hole in the ground, snuffle about in cow pats, or engage in any of their other activities. That question demonstrates the absurdity of bestowing on an animal the intelligence, feelings and sensations of a human. I passionately believe that to be wrong.
We have heard the arguments about dog fighting, bear baiting and bull baiting. The difference is that all of those involved putting animals in a captive environment within an enclosed pit or ring from which there was no escape, and the fight was to the death.

Mr. David Taylor: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Paice: No, I will not. I know that the hon. Gentleman feels strongly about the issue, but I want to get through my speech and allow other hon. Members time to speak.

Mr. Taylor: What is terrier work, if it is not that?

The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mrs. Sylvia Heal): Order.

Mr. Paice: I have said nothing about terrier work. I have talked about dog fighting, bear baiting, bull baiting and other activities that were banned decades, if not centuries, ago. They were wholly different. We are discussing hunting an animal in its natural environment.
Let me move on to the issue of whether we should judge what people do or do not do. Labour Members have said that they have no intention of moving towards a ban on shooting or fishing, although some said that they would not support that. I welcome that pronouncement, but I remind Labour Members that there are others who do not share that view. The League Against Cruel Sports has clearly stated:
Human entertainment is inadequate justification for the destruction of life.

I have leaflets here—I shall not detain the House by quoting from them—in which the league condemns virtually every other activity that is classified as a field sport.
Dawn Preston of the Hunt Saboteurs Association has said:
The Association has been in existence for almost 40 years and our memorandum of association clearly states that we exist to "sabotage where practicable the pursuit, harassment and killing of any sentient creature for sport, pleasure or population control … until such practices cease to exist".
Some dismiss those people as extremists, but it is quite commonplace for what was once an extreme view to become mainstream policy in a short space of time. Indeed, the Prime Minister stated last summer that he had no intention of banning shooting or fishing. That may be what he said, but in the short space of time—some five or six months—since then, the Home Office has already done two things to make shooting much more difficult. First, it has backed the proposals for much stricter control over gun ownership, which can only detract from people's opportunities for shooting. Secondly, it has decided to increase the fee for a firearms or shotgun certificate from £17 to £40. Those actions do not fit in with a belief that the sports are not under threat.
There is no doubt that animals—I include fish in that description—can feel pain. That is the reality, for which there is plenty of scientific evidence. However, it is not a proven point that that pain manifests itself as terror, as has often been suggested. Even Professor Bateson, in his report on deer hunting, said:
Fear, distress, suffering and pain are all defined in terms of human subjective experience.
The bottom line is that we do not know how those experiences manifest themselves in different animals, fish or birds. However, we can be pretty sure that they will not be the same as they are for humans, for reasons relating to their wholly different ways of life.
Lord Soulsby—I point out for the record that he is a constituent of mine—was a member of the Burns committee. He published a critique of the Bateson report, in which he stated:
It is important that as full an account as possible of the physiological effects of hunting deer and other species be obtained to allow a justifiable scientific stand … If hunting is to be rejected on scientific grounds then the scientific evidence should be more conclusive than it is at present.
I remind hon. Members that Lord Soulsby was emeritus professor of animal pathology at Cambridge university.
7.45 pm
I want to touch on the effect of the proposals on point-to-points, in which I have a strong constituency interest. I have two point-to-point courses in my constituency, at Horseheath and Cottenham. There is no doubt that that common, countryside weekend activity would be severely damaged by a ban on hunting. The British Horseracing Board gave evidence to the Burns inquiry, in which it stated:
The BHB believes that a ban on hunting with dogs would severely undermine the present scale of Point-to-Pointing, and that this in turn would have a damaging impact on British Racing.
There is no doubt in my mind that that is correct.
To conclude, I believe that this is a matter of liberty. I do not believe that the Burns report has proven an overwhelming case of cruelty that would justify the House


in restricting people's liberty, as is proposed. I believe that the argument returns to the issue of a moral judgment over what people should or should not do, and what they should or should not enjoy. I do not believe that that is a decision for the House; it is a decision for the individual.

Mrs. Golding: I want to raise two issues. Most people have been talking about foxhunting, but the Bill is not solely about foxhunting: it is about hunting with dogs. The only hunting with dogs that would be permitted under the Bill would be hunting for rats and you could only hunt for rats if they were on your own property, if they were in your garden, you could set the dogs on them to hunt for them, but the moment they went out of your front gate, you would have to say to the dog, "Don't go out there. That's not my property." The only way of allowing the dog to go out would be to obtain permission from the owner of the land on the other side of your garden fence. That would be nonsense, and it is inconceivable that it should be allowed. We have many rats in this country, and they should be exterminated. If we could not do it with dogs, I cannot imagine anyone doing much good with a gun.

Mr. Tom Levitt: Warfarin.

Mrs. Golding: Yes, you could use rat poison, but to stop dogs hunting for rats seems to be a crazy idea.
The other issue is one that I have often raised before. I have received a leaflet from the Staffordshire Wildlife Trust, of which I have been a member for many years, and which I strongly support. The leaflet states:
The mink swims better than the vole and the female is small enough to follow the water vole into its burrow. In other words, the mink is perfectly designed to kill the water vole.
Staffordshire Wildlife Trust wants to take immediate action to counter the threats from habitat change, man and mink to prevent the water vole becoming extinct…
One option in the Bill seeks to ban hunting for mink. No other creature, except man, can exterminate mink. If we go for the third option, we shall prevent that happening. I cannot understand how people who say that they are going to defend the countryside and that they are interested in the environment can say that one should not hunt for mink. Nothing else will destroy them.

Mr. Simon Thomas: I shall concentrate my remarks on the amendments that I have tabled with the support of my right hon. and hon. Friends regarding the commencement of the option on which the Committee will decide tonight. I want to put that briefly in context. Several hon. Members rightly described how they have consulted their constituents and worked with interests in their constituencies. On the whole, that has led them to believe that a ban is the right option in these circumstances. I have gone through a similar process.
Almost a year ago today, I stood in a by-election in Ceredigion to be elected to the House. My new-Labour opponent made my views on hunting an issue. Unfortunately for my opponent, we won with the largest ever percentage of the vote for Plaid Cymru. Even more unfortunately for new Labour, its candidate came fourth, with the worst ever result for the Labour party in Ceredigion. It was clear what I stood for as regards hunting in Ceredigion and west Wales and the upland and sheep farming areas of Wales in particular. During the

campaign, I said that, should I be elected to the House, I would table the relevant amendments to ensure that the National Assembly for Wales had a say on hunting in Wales. That is the purpose of tabling our amendments and seeking the Committee's support for them.
I want to say a few words about the effect that our amendments may have on hunting in Wales. My views are not the only reason for our tabling them. After the publication of the Burns report, the National Assembly debated the report and gave its response to it. On a Conservative motion, the National Assembly voted, albeit narrowly, to ask for the powers to decide on hunting in Wales to be devolved. I am sure that Labour Members will not complain if there is a narrow vote for a ban tonight. Our amendments represent the view of the majority of Members of the National Assembly, though not, of course, the view of the present Lib-Lab coalition in the National Assembly.
Before the summer, when I first raised the matter with the Home Secretary, a couple of things were said to me, which the Minister has repeated. I want to quash the nasty rumours about what the amendments may mean to Wales or to the devolution settlement—which I would not describe as settled, but be that as it may. I hope that our amendments are selected. They would amend the commencement orders and the way in which those are drawn up, so that the National Assembly could make decisions in Wales. For example, were option 2 agreed to—perhaps not tonight, but further down the line when the Bill returns from the other place—the National Assembly would decide the details of the hunting authority in Wales and matters such as what hunting would or would not be licensed. Let me give a personal example: I see no reason at all for hare coursing, and many of my remarks will address the need for foxhunting as pest control.

Mr. Hayes: The hon. Gentleman refers to hare coursing, and a lot of misapprehensions about it are apparent in the Chamber. Is he aware that illegal hare coursing, which takes place without the permission of landowners, usually for the kill and for big money, is widespread in the east of England and partly responsible for the destruction of the brown hare population, which the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) mentioned? If it cannot be policed now, what difference would passing a Bill banning hunting with dogs make? Illegal hare coursing has a lot to answer for, but such a Bill would do nothing to address the problem.

Mr. Thomas: If it is illegal, it should be stopped. It is as simple as that.

Mr. Hayes: It is not that simple.

Mr. Thomas: Well, it is. It is the Government's responsibility to provide the right resources to enable that to happen. I shall address the two main needs arising from the Bill: keeping upland sheep farming alive in Wales and maintaining an active, vital and biodiverse countryside. For me, hare coursing has no part in that. However, foxhunting, under a system of regulation, has.
My final point about the devolution aspects of our amendments concerns the idea that to introduce different criminal sanctions in Wales and in England would


somehow be to undermine and rip up the United Kingdom constitution—not that it exists to rip up, of course. There have been differences in the past. Sunday pub opening was different in England and in Wales: it was a crime to have a pint in Wales, but perfectly legal to do so in England, which reflected the different social and, at the time, non-conformist, make-up of Wales. In advocating our amendments, we are suggesting that there are circumstances in Wales sufficient to allow for more flexibility to be devolved to the National Assembly through the Bill.

Mr. Nick Ainger: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Sunday licensing laws were poor law and that many football and rugby clubs opened on Sundays, making nonsense of the system? He suggests that there should be a difference between England and Wales, but, in fact, just as the licensing laws made poor law, his proposal would make extremely poor law.

Mr. Thomas: I do not accept that as a criticism of the principle. However, were I to pursue that argument, I would be well out of order, so I shall not do so. I say this to the hon. Gentleman, however. Last night, we discussed the Children's Commissioner for Wales Bill. There was full consultation on the Bill with the National Assembly for Wales and it is progressing on a fast-track procedure, with the support of my party and other opposition parties, because we know that the devolution settlement has worked in relation to that example. I ask the Minister to say whether there has been any serious discussion of this Bill with the National Assembly.

Mr. Livsey: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that upland farming in Wales is totally different from that anywhere else in Great Britain? There are 16 sheep to every person in my constituency. The only other place where that ratio occurs is in New Zealand. Lambs must be protected. They are vital to the rural economy, so we need effective control measures for foxes.

Mr. Thomas: Yes, and that was recognised in the Burns report, which said that those special circumstances, which also occur in Cumbria, could not affect the general move forward that the House might want to make. However, we could do something different in Wales because we have the National Assembly. Other areas in England may have the same problems, and I regret that our amendments cannot assist them—whereas, as I shall argue, they may be of help to Wales and the Assembly.
The Children's Commissioner for Wales Bill underwent long consultation, which is why I ask the Minister whether the National Assembly has been consulted on this Bill. Last night we learned that the protocol between the National Assembly and the Wales Office—which is supposed to enable discussion and, where possible, agreement on legislation before it comes to the House—has not yet been agreed and put in place. In the absence of that protocol, have we in Wales had the opportunity fully to appreciate what is in the Bill? Be that as it may, we have been able to table amendments.
I want to make another point clear. The Government will seek to amend their own Bill, and what my party wants to achieve—devolving a decision on hunting in

Wales wholly to the National Assembly, which may represent a departure from the present devolution arrangement—is not possible under tonight's voting procedure. However, it will be possible to decide here in the primary legislative Chamber the preferred option of Members. If Members wish it, we could accept the amendment which says that, in Wales, the details of the chosen option should be worked out by the National Assembly and should commence and be implemented by agreement with it. That would not fly in the face of any principles.
I shall say a few words about the different options, but would first point out that, when canvassed, National Assembly Members said that they would support a ban. I offer that information to the Committee. The extent to which our countryside, which we admire and feel strongly about, is managed by its prime custodians—the farming community and, in my area, those who run family farms—has not been sufficiently emphasised.
My constituency must be one of the most rural in Wales. Only one of all the post offices—there are about 40—is not classed as rural in the Government's guidelines. In such constituencies, the whole wild animal population is controlled in one way or another—in other words, killed in one way or another. Foxes, badgers, deer, mink and rats have already been mentioned; they are controlled—hunted or trapped—and killed.
In these islands, we are the species that cares for the environment, but we are also at the top of the pyramid of predators. In the countryside, what we do determines whether a species lives or dies. We may introduce the beaver or even reintroduce the wolf to certain areas; the human species is in control of our countryside.

8 pm

Mr. Livsey: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Forestry Commission and private interests have imposed on our countryside a mono-culture of softwood forests that harbour thousands of foxes and have altered the ecology of our rural areas?

Mr. Thomas: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. He demonstrates how we have changed the countryside for our economic purposes. That has side effects on the fox population and on other creatures. For example, in my constituency, a huge effort has been made to boost the population of red kite during the past few years. In one sense, that has been too successful, because conservation organisations have observed that there are too many red kite in mid-Wales—the birds are having an effect on farming.
It will be difficult to square the circle on conservation issues. Mostly, we ask farmers to do that. In Wales, we pay farmers agri-money through the Tir Glas and Tir Mynydd schemes and ask them to look after the land in a sustainable way. I am concerned that the ban option would take away from farmers one of the tools that they use on our behalf to maintain the countryside which we all say we love and want preserved.
The real question posed by the Bill is not whether or not we want to kill, because the killing takes place already: it is how we do it and where and when it should be allowed. It has been put to the Committee that the Bill contains only two options—to ban or not to ban.
Philosophically, however, even the ban option is not really a ban, because it allows certain types of hunting with hounds and dogs to continue.
I agree with supporters of a ban that what we are talking about in this debate is where we draw the line. Where is the best place to put that line? Should it be at the edge of strict control, so that hunting with hounds is almost impossible? Should it be somewhere in the middle? It is acknowledged that the detail of that option will have to be worked out in another Committee. Should the matter be relaxed and free and easy? Over the past few years, we have been made aware of how the public feel about that option.
The point at which we draw that line will reflect deeply on our approach to this issue. Is our approach based on conservation, on pragmatism, on making it work or on allowing a viable and sustainable countryside, especially in marginal fanning areas?

Mr. Öpik: The Middle Way Group is satisfied that the provisions of the schedule associated with clause 2 are workable in their present format, but if that option were accepted, we could have a constructive discussion in the Standing Committee about those aspects that have proved to be bones of contention in this place.

Mr. Thomas: I accept that point, but there is a line to be drawn in relation to the Middle Way Group option, too—and to say that is not to criticise its workings but to note that it could move either way along the spectrum.
As the Minister pointed out, the measure is a Home Office Bill. It thus broadly deals with non-devolved matters. However, it would have a huge effect on agriculture in Wales and on the social life of rural communities. It says to the citizens of Wales, "That which you were once doing shall be a criminal offence". Unlike some Members, I do not deny the House its role in that matter; under the present settlement, it is for the House to decide whether a particular activity is any longer acceptable to the majority of public opinion. I appreciate that.
There is no immutable right to hunt in all circumstances. There is a right to hunt only as long as the rest of society allows the practice to continue. That is what we are debating this evening. Nevertheless, I hope that members of society who are not involved in hunting—I am one—will think deeply about what will happen in certain areas. Do we want to create a situation in which farming in areas that we like to visit, that are biodiverse and sustainable, is further undermined by the removal from farmers of a particular option? I strongly advocate that we consider that point.
I feel strongly that, as the Minister said, the 40 Welsh constituency MPs—I hope that they are all in this place this evening—can and should be able to express the views of Wales. In his concluding remarks, will he tell us whether they will have a free vote on the amendments? He was rather circumspect when asked about that by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes).

Mr. Mike O'Brien: It is a free vote.

Mr. Thomas: I am grateful to the Minister for that information. In that case, my remaining question is to

Opposition Front-Bench Members: will Opposition Members have a free vote too? Plaid Cymru Members will of course have a free vote—[Interruption.] —I understand from informal remarks that, free vote or not, some Liberal Members will vote with us on this matter. I am glad to receive that confirmation.
Only one year ago, I stood on an election platform and made a clear statement of my stance on this matter and explained what I should be trying to do. This evening, I have had the opportunity to advance my views. I hope that hon. Members, no matter how they feel, will listen to some of the views and concerns expressed in a particular, peripheral farming area and will consider how the hunting ban will affect that area. If we have a further opportunity to debate the measure when it comes back from another place, perhaps we can consider a compromise that would allow certain practices to support farming interests in Wales.

Mr. Gordon Prentice: I have only a few points to make because we have debated this issue to death. We have been around the course so many times that the arguments are extremely familiar.
I support option 3—a total ban—and reject the other two options. Some people say that a total ban is unenforceable. The right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) entered the Chamber a few moments ago, but then disappeared. As he is a former Home Office Minister whose e-mail has been plastered across the newspapers over recent days, I am disappointed that he is not listening to the debate.
I tried to intervene on the former Home Secretary, the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), but unfortunately he would not allow me to do so. I wanted to ask him whether it is right for a former Home Office Minister to make the statement published in The Observer on 14 January. The right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border stated:
I think the banning option is impossible to enforce, and once we stir up the police about its weakness they will be terrified of trying to implement it.
Can hon. Members believe that?

Mr. Edward Leigh: The hon. Gentleman may be surprised to learn that I tend to agree with the consequence of what he says. This weekend, the master of a hunt told me that hunts are big business; it costs £50,000 a year to run them. Once the ban comes into effect—if it does—hunts will not be able to survive in some underground way; 18 in 20 hounds will have to be put down, as well as some of the horses. The hon. Gentleman is right. There will not be massive civil disobedience and the hunts will vanish. Of course, I regret that—he may not.

Mr. Prentice: We hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but I am making the point that it is inappropriate for a former Home Office Minister to talk about stirring up the police so that they are terrified of implementing the law. Let me tell the putative law breakers on the Opposition Benches that, when the Bill has become an Act, they must take the consequences if they or those who support them break the law.

Mr. Hayes: The hon. Gentleman is most generous in giving way. As I said earlier, every weekend in the east


of England, people go hare coursing illegally. The police tell me that it is too difficult to control. He and I care about the fact that the brown hare population is declining, and brown hares survive where regulated, legal hare coursing takes place. Where hare shoots and illegal coursing take place, they are being wiped out, and farmers and landowners are being intimidated into the bargain.

Mr. Prentice: I take the point, but all I would say is that the Home Office has been in touch with the Association of Chief Police Officers to find out whether there would be any particular difficulties about enforcing such a Bill if it were to reach the statute book. The Minister will want to comment on this in winding up the debate, but I understand that the chief police officers do not envisage any unusual, particular problems in enforcing the proposal if it becomes law, as I am sure it will. On the spring hare population in the east of England, it is up to the police to do what we pay them to do—enforce the law.

Mr. Mike O'Brien: As the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) said, ACPO's view is that much the same resources are likely to be involved in enforcing any of the schedules, because substantial resources are currently involved in ensuring that hunts can take place and in dealing with protests and the other issues associated with hunts. The other two schedules may involve resource issues.

Mr. Prentice: A survey has been conducted on how much police forces spend on policing the hunts. We have replies from about half the police forces in England. The average annual sum is about £500,000, so police forces already spend considerable amounts on such policing.
I do not want to labour this point, but it is important because Opposition Members talk about the criminalisation of law-abiding people. When the Bill goes on to the statute book, it will not involve criminalising law-abiding people, but taking action against law breakers. People outside the House do not make the law. We are elected to make the law and, if people reject our views, they can vote us out. The members of the Pendle Forest and Craven hunt, which is based in my constituency, can vote me out; they can put up a candidate if they like, and they can circulate leaflets. I am happy to have that debate because I am convinced that my views would prevail if we were to do so.

Mr. Baker: For the record, I tell the hon. Gentleman that I wrote to each chief constable to ask the cost of policing hunts in the year 1999–2000. About a third of the forces replied, and the total for each was £542,854—not an insubstantial sum.

Mr. Prentice: The House will be grateful to the hon. Gentleman for supplying that information.
This debate is not about the slippery slope, angling, shooting, insects—astonishingly, we heard about mosquitoes earlier—birds, the whale population or all the sentient creatures in God's universe, but about what is in the Bill. All the other tactics are merely diversionary and intended to take us off the main argument.

Mr. Öpik: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Prentice: I must make a little progress, but I will give way because I am interested to hear the exponent of the third way—[Interruption]—the middle way. That was a Freudian slip, because I was about to refer to the main exponent of the third way—the Prime Minister. I am a great fan of the Prime Minister, and all Labour Members breathed a huge, collective sigh of relief when he stuck to his principled position, which he set out two years ago, and did not move because he is a man of principle. That should encourage hon. Members on both sides of the House to vote for option 3.
I like being candid—not unkind, but just candid—so I have to say that I was disappointed in my good friend and constituency near neighbour, the Home Secretary. I withdrew my amendment to the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, because the Government promised to introduce their own legislation, and, in the euphoria, I referred to the Home Secretary as a hero. That heroic phase was just a passing one, but I still like him and we get on well together. However, the middle way, which the Home Secretary supports, is chasing moonbeams.
I am a student of the third way and of the middle way, and it is amazing that after two and a half years' cogitation, trying to square the circle, the middle way did not have an answer on hare coursing. What did the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) say a few moments ago? I jotted it down, because that is the sort of person I am. He said that we still have some way to go. Can hon. Members believe that hare coursing is still work in progress?
At least the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) came up with some sort of solution. I paraphrase him, but he suggested that hare coursing should be allowed in those parts of the country where there are hares and banned where there are none. The middle way may be short of money but it is not short of intelligence, so why cannot it find a solution?

Mr. Öpik: I find that attack extraordinary. I have already, made it clear to the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Mr. Cawsey)—I sometimes like to think that he is also my friend—that we have tried to take an honest approach throughout, and I said that there had been division and concern about hare coursing in the Middle Way Group. Furthermore, does the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) not remember that I gave him credit for causing us to focus on that issue? If he continues to lambast us simply for trying to have an honest and open discussion, having taken a tentative position on our schedule, I shall be disappointed because I thought he would be more generous than that.

Mr. Prentice: This is really touchy-feely politics. We all like the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik). We get on well together, but when I posed a simple, direct question—

Mr. Öpik: rose—

Mr. Prentice: Hang on a minute. I asked what practical difference the middle way regime on the regulation of hare coursing would make.

Mr. Öpik: rose—

Mr. Prentice: I will not allow the hon. Gentleman to intervene. The answer was that he still had some way to go before working out a position. He must stop pointing to the Bill; we have all read it and we know what it says.
The Burns report said that hare corsing was
essentially carried out for recreational purposes.
As I said, the little hares that hop about do not eat meat or harm anyone, but the hare is a threatened creature. The Conservative party introduced the biodiversity action plan, which included a target. I thought that Labour Members had fixations about targets, but the plan included a target for the little spring hare, jumping about. It was that the spring hare population should double by 2010. We are thus supposed to be doubling the hare population, but at the same time some hon. Members condone the killing of hares—which are not pests or vermin—for fun. That usually excites a response from the Conservatives, but let me say it again—for fun.

Mr. Hayes: rose—

Mr. Prentice: I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman again.
We are talking about killing for sporting or recreational purposes, and that is not on.
Why am I voting for option 3?

Sir Nicholas Lyell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Prentice: I know exactly what the right hon. and learned Gentleman is going to say. He has intervened on me before, but I want to make some progress because many of my colleagues want to speak.
I am voting for option 3 because hunting is cruel. That is not a difficult concept to grasp. Some people, including eminent people such as scientists, say that it is not cruel. The Times published a letter on 20 December last year which many of my colleagues will have read. It was written by Dr. L. H. Thomas of Smiths Cottage, North Heath, Chieveley who is the secretary of Vets for Hunting, a group that I did not know existed. He said:
For 90 per cent. or more of any hunt—
in this case, a fox hunt—
they—
the foxes—
are not fleeing in terror of their lives, but rather are responding in a remarkably controlled manner to an entirely natural, albeit adverse stimulus.
It is only in the short final stages of the hunt that the quarry comes under any serious stress and that no more, in physiological terms, than the extended athlete or racehorse.
There we have it. He went on to say:
There is—
I do not know how these scientists divine such information—
no apparent premonition of death.
Can hon. Members believe that?
The hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire said that it would be wrong for us to bestow human traits on animals. We are not doing that. I am concerned about what we as humans do to animals. I believe that we should treat animals with respect, but I do not t think that they are prototype humans. The Burns report, which we have all read, concludes that there are more humane alternatives. Shooting foxes—lamping—has not been dreamed up by the League Against Cruel Sports. It was official Government policy when the right hon. and learned

Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) was Minister of Agriculture and running the show at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. The official line was that if there was a problem with the fox population, the fox was shot. That is also my view.
We hear much from self-appointed people who speak for country men and women. Apparently, no Labour Member speaks for them; it is something that the Conservatives do. The hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Townend), in a most astonishingly racist speech, gave the impression that he and people like him speak for country people. Well, they do not. I represent a constituency with a large rural collar and speak for many country people. I do not, however, take it upon myself to stand here and say, "I speak on behalf of everyone in the countryside", because I do not. I speak for people who share my point of view, as many people in the countryside do.
The hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) spoke about the abolition of the hunt changing the face of agriculture. I allowed myself a wry smile, because the hon. Gentleman—and I like him too—was an Agriculture Minister in the previous Government. That Administration changed the face of agriculture—not irreversibly, we hope—by advocating the common agricultural policy and intensive agriculture. During the Conservatives' stewardship, 158,000 km of hedgerows were ripped out; yet they come here and lecture us, and people outside the House, that they are the guardians of the countryside, but they are not.
We will all—each individual Member of Parliament—vote according to our own lights. No one is pulling any strings as far as I am concerned. I believe that hunting's time has gone; it has passed. When we ban hunting, people will just have to pick themselves up, dust themselves down and get on with their lives. I urge my hon. Friends and other hon. Members to vote for option 3.

Mr. Paterson: It is a great pleasure to speak for the first time with you, Mrs. Heal, in the Chair. It is also a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice), but I shall try to be more concise.
There were two demonstrations in Parliament square today that involved horses: one was a horse-drawn hearse on behalf of Harefield hospital, and was attended by several hundred people; the second was a demonstration about hunting. One really has to question what the general public thinks is the most important issue. It is extraordinary that we are using parliamentary time on hunting when there are so many other issues—such as crime, police and hospitals—that we could be discussing. However, here we are tonight. I have not spoken on the issue since I had the pleasure of serving on the Standing Committee that considered the Bill promoted by the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster). I shall try to make a few brief points on detail, as the Minister invited us to do.
I represent North Shropshire, where four packs of foxhounds, two packs of beagles and a pack of mink hounds operate. I hunt, and my family has hunted for many years. I am probably a definition of hell on wheels for the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Etherington).
Following the Burns report, Labour Members have a duty to produce an overwhelming reason why the ban should go through, because Burns does not prove cruelty.


That is the fundamental point. Hunting has taken place in this country for 200 years. As a result, we have the most healthy and sustainable fox population in western Europe. Therefore, I will be supporting clause 1, but I could not support it if Burns had given conclusive proof that hunting was cruel.
People who go hunting are decent and honest. It is clear that they go hunting for entertainment, but they would not go hunting if conclusive evidence proved that an alternative method of culling foxes was less cruel. However, the Burns report says that none of the legal methods of fox control is without difficulty from an animal welfare perspective. That is a great understatement. Hunting works with the seasons. Every hon. Member has missed that point. Apart from the six or seven days that a pack of hounds visits an area, foxes are effectively protected, which allows for a sustainable population. Every other method that has been mentioned would lead to the indiscriminate killing of pregnant vixens, cubs down an earth and healthy mature foxes.
Burns tentatively recommends that lamping could be the most effective method. Obviously, a marksman—I have yet to meet a marksmen in the country, although I have lived there all my life—in broad daylight, with a rifle, in good weather conditions, would probably kill a fox outright.

Mr. Hogg: Is not my hon. Friend's reference to healthy mature foxes terribly important? Is it not the truth that foxhunters, on the whole, kill elderly and infirm foxes? If those animals were shot, there would be indiscriminate culling, including that of healthy and young beasts.

Mr. Paterson: My right hon. and learned Friend endorses my point. In addition, hunters catch foxes that have been wounded by shooting. Marksmanship is not a skill for which most of the farmers in north Shropshire are noted. Lamping would put at risk humans and livestock within at least a mile of the shoot. Most shooting would take place with No. 6 gameshot, probably fired from shotguns, and most foxes would go on to die an agonising and lingering death that is infinitely more cruel than the details of the moment of death in a hunt, which the hon. Member for Worcester goes on and on about.
Last weekend, I visited the members of one of the gun packs in the area above Oswestry. They kill 250 foxes a season and they are skilled people. They use shotguns with BB shot, but only 20 per cent. of the foxes that they kill are killed outright with the first shot; the rest have to be pursued by hounds. Therefore, the evidence that I have given shows that tamping and shooting are certainly not less cruel than hunting.
8.30 pm
Some years ago, I visited a shooting area in the north of England in which there was no hunting at all, and I found a vixen in a snare. That was absolutely revolting. She must have been in the snare for some time and I will not give a gory description of what I saw. However, I am completely convinced that trapping and snaring are hideously cruel. Gassing is illegal and it is revolting in the indiscriminate manner in which it kills and partially poisons other animals down an earth, particularly badgers, which are protected.
Those who support a ban on hunting have comprehensively failed to address the cruelties of alternative methods. They also ignore the practical consequences of a ban. First, foxes will be less healthy—there is no doubt about that. Yesterday, I spoke to the master of a German pack of drag hounds who was clear that, since the ban in Germany in the 1930s, the fox population has been plagued by diseases. Germany has just got on top of rabies, but it now has a particular problem with a tapeworm, which he described as FuchsbandswÖrm. The worm is so dangerous to human beings—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Worcester is laughing, but the gentleman told me that, in Germany, people touch foxes only with plastic gloves and a handy bin liner, which they then take to an incinerator, because the FuchsbandwÖrm can cause a contagious reaction in human beings that can affect the liver and also can be lethal.
A ban will no doubt cause terrible damage to the sheep industry, as we heard from the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas), who was backed up by the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Livsey). In the area above Oswestry, four or five valleys each have a gun pack that kills 250 foxes a season. The masters of those packs are adamant that only packs of hounds can flush out foxes from blocks of forest, some as large as 10,000 acres. Einion Evans, the master of the Banwy fox control society, said last night:
If they ban it, we'll be overrun. It'll be a disaster. The fox will be a hell of a lot less healthy.
A serious conservation question is also involved. On the hills, most ground-nesting birds, such as curlew, plover, merlin or hen harriers, would be wiped out. Yesterday, I spoke to a researcher who works for Severn Trent at lake Vyrnwy, where the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds runs a large reserve around the lake. It collaborates with the pack of hounds that I have just mentioned and the researcher has carried out a study on the black grouse in that area. He was quite clear that only hounds can effectively keep foxes down. He said:
For ground nesting birds it would be devastation. If they stopped around the lake, I don't know how we would deal with them.

Mr. Livsey: The situation in my constituency of Brecon and Radnorshire is far more graphic. Nine hunts dispose of 2,000 foxes per annum. They have done so for the past 30 years and maintained a steady fox population.

Mr. Paterson: I am grateful for that helpful intervention, which endorses what I have just said. I think that the hon. Gentleman would also agree that tamping could not work in upland areas, because one has to use a vehicle.
Another consequence of the ban that has not been touched on in the debate is the benefit that the hunts bring from disposing of fallen stock. Hunt kennels provide a crucial free service—24 hours a day, every day of the year—in humanely and quickly putting down injured animals and in disposing of the carcases in an environmentally friendly manner. In the last year, the Wynnstay and the North Shropshire hunts have alone each taken 2,500 calves and more than 300 cattle. A vet would charge at least £50 to come out, do the diagnosis and put down the animal and the carcase would still have to be disposed of. A knacker charges £70 to £80, but a local


knacker to whom I have recently spoken doubted that the industry could handle a huge increase in work given the extra costs imposed by recent regulations.
Those urging a ban must address that issue. Farm incomes have collapsed, so who will pay for the disposal of carcases? Will they just be buried at night? It is disgraceful that the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has come out in favour of a ban without a response to those questions, at the same time as the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food puts out literature commending hunt kennels to farmers.

Mr. Stephen O'Brien: I spoke to the Malpas farmers club only last week and it was clear that the attack on the rural economy that a potential ban represents will be enormous when one takes into account the added costs of disposing of fallen stock. That will be an on-cost to the farming community, which forms part of the proper balance in the fragile and inter-dependent rural economy that is under terrible attack from the Government.

Mr. Paterson: I agree with my neighbour; I endorse his remarks.
Many farmers tolerate hunting be cause of the service that hunts provide for fallen stock. Many will not allow drag hounds across their land and there will be a drastic reduction in the horse population. The German drag pack that I mentioned now has only 12 mounted followers and it meets only 35 to 50 times a year, because landowners will not tolerate it meeting more often. That point was made clearly by my hon. Friend the Member for Boston and Skegness (Sir R. Body).
There will be significant job losses. The hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Caplin) was disingenuous because he cherry-picked the Burns report. Burns referred to 6,000 to 8,000 jobs—but, luckily, the hon. Gentleman was tripped up by my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray), who took the figure up to 12,000 to 13,000 at least by considering more than job equivalents and part-time jobs.
Businesses near me will be disproportionately affected in rural areas. I know a saddlery business that will be wiped out—it will close down—and a family feed business that will also close entirely Yesterday, I talked to the head of a substantial feed chandler whose turnover is at least 50 per cent. devoted to hunting. He thinks that half his work force will go. There is a disproportionate impact in isolated rural areas. Many blacksmiths get through the winter only because of hunting and I know that, in some areas near me, farriers no longer take on apprentices. A major veterinary practice has told me that it will almost certainly reduce the number of fully qualified vets that it has, to the detriment of the whole animal population in the area.
Above all, the horse industry will be severely damaged. At the moment animals bred for specialist activities, such as racing, point-to-pointing, show jumping and eventing, that do not make the grade can be sold on as hunters for £3,000 to £5,000. They will go on to enjoy 12 to 15 years of happy life. If a ban is introduced, this floor will be torn up and the only option will be the vile alternative of the Belgian meat market where prices are currently as low as £300 per carcase, and would obviously be depressed further.
Hunts draw young people into a social network that lasts all their lives. Drag hunting is only suitable for wealthy, aggressive thrusters. [Interruption.] Labour Members may laugh but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) said, they totally underestimate the determination of country people to defend their freedoms. As I was about to say, people can hunt well into their 70s and the loss of social cohesion in isolated rural areas will be a further totally unnecessary consequence of a ban.
The ban option is thoroughly incompetently drafted. It does not define hunting. It requires breathtaking double standards. It will be illegal to hunt rats with a terrier, but not with a ferret. It will be illegal to hunt rabbits with a dog, but not with a hawk. The ban is drafted in such a way as to presume guilt in direct breach of the most ancient traditions of English law. It is quite wrong that a person innocently walking his dog should be subjected to intrusive visits by police without a warrant.
Above all, a ban will be supremely difficult to enforce. The last march in London totalled 300,000 people; the next will be a lot bigger. We understand that Members have their power, but it is not possible to run a pluralist society if the majority abuses its powers over a significant minority. [Interruption.] If Labour Members listened, they might learn something.
As a former tanner, I know what damage is done to cattle during halal slaughter. However repulsive I find it, I would not dream of banning an activity that is central to the religion of a small but significant minority. The proposers of a ban must provide an overwhelming reason for the deprivation of such a large minority's freedom to pursue an activity that is legal in all other western countries except Germany. Before they troop through the politically correct Lobby, brimming with self-righteous bile and spiteful prejudice, they should remember the unhappy precedent of 1936 when the revolting Reichsjägermeister Hermann Goering persuaded Adolf Hitler to ban hunting. We should not create criminals lightly. No one gained in Germany then; no one will gain now. A ban will be an ominous portent of further freedoms to be lost at the hands of an intolerant majority.

Mr. Mark Todd: This is foreign territory for me because I have never spoken on this subject. [Interruption.] My neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire (Mr. Taylor), is clearly in an ebullient mood. To give hon. Members the flavour of my constituency, I can say that it is largely rural, and it has one beagle hunt and the Meynell hunt, which of course caused the heir to the throne a mishap a few weeks ago. I am not sure whether that accident happened in my constituency, but it appears that it was roughly in that area.
Like my hon. Friend, whose constituency is very similar to mine, I have found that opinions are not bitterly divided. They are broadly the same throughout the rural areas, the small town and the fringe of Derby that I represent. A possible exception are the most rural hamlets to the west of Derby, which, based on my correspondence and contacts, might contain a slightly higher number of people who support hunts.
A difficulty with the Bill, and a flaw in the Government's approach, is the fact that we have three positions that are, as the Minister said at the start of the


debate, set out by their advocates. I shall support the third option, a total ban. However, I shall do so with concerns about the precise application of that ban and the way in which it will be implemented. I find it hard to accept the contributions of some of my hon. Friends, who have implied that this is the finished article that will be thrust into play without thought or consideration. Although I would not support the middle way, the defence that it is work in progress and a listening process needs to apply to the third option as well.
Rational points have been made about the precise application of this law. I listened carefully to my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding), although I did not agree with everything that she said. In my constituency, too, people pursue rodents using dogs, and we must address the need for a precise definition of when one may use one's dog and of how one controls a dog in pursuit of a rat if it goes underground or on to someone else's property. I do not want to make people involuntary criminals by passing this law.
I have found it difficult to take part in a debate such as this because the debates that tend to appeal to me consist of clear, coherent philosophies that I can grasp, and the positions taken by those who defend hunting and by those who oppose it often contain incoherencies and inconsistencies that are difficult to defend. I am regularly confronted by those who know of my position as an opponent of hunting and who point out that there are many other examples of cruelty to animals and, indeed, to human beings that society appears to accept, and yet we act in this case. My answer tends to be that I am certainly an imperfect human being and that the perfect is often the enemy of the best possible solution that we can achieve. As human beings, we often have to tolerate inconsistencies.
8.45 pm
I have listened to much of the debate, and I listened carefully to the arguments about civil liberties, which were well expressed, and for the need for hesitation, if not a halt, to any step that reduces an individual's liberty to carry out his normal activities, which are currently legal. It has been clearly stated that liberties are not absolute. We regularly restrict the liberties of our citizens to do things that may cause harm to others or to our environment and wildlife, which are of course unable to represent themselves in the Chamber. Examples have been given of laws passed to prevent cruelty to animals. Those are all infringements of liberty.
I do not belittle the fact that the third option would reduce liberty, but considering it in the light of other decisions, I do not regard it as a step change towards a dictatorial society. The hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) implied that a ban would be akin to an act in Nazi Germany. I do not find that resonance in the issue, although, as a ban may reduce an individual's liberty, it must clearly be reflected on. However, it would be a reasonable step because for a long time, and certainly during the past century and a half, the House has

consistently made decisions that reflect the social mores of the majority in our country and its definition of what is acceptable in life.

Mr. Hayes: As always, the hon. Gentleman is making a considered contribution. On the last point, does he acknowledge that the shift in opinion since the matter was first debated in the House a couple of years ago has, if anything, been towards greater tolerance of hunting? Does he accept that, as the hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire (Mr. Taylor) was honest enough to admit in his contribution, there has been a shift towards the view that hunting should be allowed to continue in some form or another?

Mr. Todd: No, I am not sure that I do, to be honest. I have listened carefully to the debate, and I although I hope not to speak for too long, I shall come on to the steps that we need to take to deal with the serious issues. Defences of hunting have been given on which, I must admit, I have had to reflect carefully. However, I do not think that there has been a substantial shift of opinion in favour of hunting.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: Over the past 30 years I have been involved in Bills of this nature. Is my hon. Friend aware that long before the previous general election there was a huge shift in attitudes towards hunting in the House and the community as a whole? In order of priority by which people would ban hunting, hare coursing is top, followed by deer hunting, which Conservatives Members have not mentioned, and foxhunting.

Mr. Todd: I dot not doubt my hon. Friend's word. It would hardly be right for me to advise the advocates of hunting, but in their position I would have sought some time ago to discard certain, utterly indefensible hunting practices, so that much more of the ground on which they stand could be defended. Their tactical stance has instead been to make a brazen defence of every practice, however unjustifiable. To that extent, they have been their own worst enemy throughout much of this debate, but that is for them to judge. [Interruption.] I see the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) gesturing—I do not know whether he wants to intervene, but I was not casting aspersions on him.
The nub of my argument is that, because it is possible to knock down on philosophical grounds the arguments that have been presented by both sides, in the end I have to make my judgment on pragmatic grounds. That is where I stand. The Burns committee provided useful information, but we should remember that it sought to do no more. There has been a tendency to wave the Burns conclusions in all directions, but we should be careful. In fact, the committee was instructed not to advise us on how to legislate on this matter. It sought instead to provide intelligence—sometimes a rare thing—and useful information on which we can base our judgments.
From that, I draw certain conclusions, the first of which is that, in some parts of the country—not all, by any means—the fox is a significant predatory pest that causes damage, mainly to farm stock. We must accept that fact and think carefully about how to deal with it.
Secondly, accepting that conclusion, we have to think about the ways in which foxes can be controlled. The Burns committee showed that there is no welfare-friendly


way to control foxes in absolute terns. All methods have disadvantages and there is no perfect solution. The report inclines towards lamping, but some hon. Members—particularly those with constituencies in Wales—have expressed reservations about the difficulties that lamping in upland wooded areas might present.
Thirdly, in some instances, terrier work and work underground has produced app fling examples of damage—certainly to the fox and occasionally to the terrier. One Opposition Member referred to the mistaken comparison with practices such as bull baiting and badger baiting, wherein a confined animal is attacked by human beings. Such practices are comparatble to the work of terriermen following hunts. In the east midlands, the outcome of many hunts is that the fox goes to earth and is dug out and killed with dogs. That strikes me as similar in many respects to practices that have previously been banned by Parliament with general consent.
Fourthly, hounds do not always kill foxes rapidly. The idea that a pack of hounds descends on the fox and death is instantaneous is a myth. Speeches by Labour Members have demonstrated that a quick death is not always the case. Sometimes foxes suffer an appalling and barbarous death. One cannot blame the foxhounds—that is what they are bred to do. It is human beings who have developed that process and we have to be aware of that.
On employment and job losses, useful information has been provided. The precise numbers have been bounced around this Chamber, but as someone who cares about every job that is lost, speculation as to whether 8.000, 12,000 or a mere 800 jobs will be lost serves only to trivialise the issue. To the individual! concerned, each job is a job lost. I do not necessarily de fend the activities in which those people are involved, but at the moment they are legal. If we choose to legislate according to what the majority considers an appropriate way to control mammals that cause problems, we must have some consideration for the rights and future employability of such people.
It is also possible to exaggerate the impact on employment. Many people in m" constituency ride horses—from time to time, I allow neighbours to keep horses in my field. Horse culture appears to be a thriving part of the local economy. The drarnatic laic statements that were made about the abolition of hnnting leading to the death of horse culture were ridiculoe us exaggeration. To be honest, my impression is that a large proportion of the horse-riding population in my constituency takes no part in hunting activities. They choose to enjoy the pleasure of the Derbyshire countryside on horseback and I am hardly going to blame them for that.
We must ask how we can ensure t tat the economies of very isolated communities—Burns identified a few—that are highly dependent on hunting activities would cope with the abolition of hunting. In arriving at a judgment—as I shall tonight—that hunting should be abolished, we must recognise our responsibility to those whom we would thereby put out of work. Their small—often, extremely small—communities would be substantially damaged by the loss of a currently legal activity.
I want to see the key elements reflected in the work of the Standing Committee that will consider the Bill—I am not bidding to sit on it, but, with respect, I am advising those who will—and implement the total ban, which I am sure will be introduced, with my support. First, we need

to reflect on the timetable that will be applied to the Bill, and how that impacts on hound welfare. Some exaggerated points have been made about the potential loss of life of hounds. There are employment implications and particular implications for some smaller communities. There is an opportunity for us to consider these impacts and the action that any Government should take.
Secondly, an important element is that of reviewing the effectiveness of other means of control of foxes in certain areas. The point has been well made that there is a shortage of highly trained marksmen to carry out the task. That should be our concern. If the main thrust of enacting the Bill is to improve animal welfare, it would be wrong to disdain the issue of how that control should be exercised in future. More reflection is required on whether assistance is needed to improve the quality of training of those who exercise the duty of control in the countryside. Perhaps we should consider funding for that purpose in some instances.
Thirdly, there is the targeting of aid to certain communities. We should not cast aside that responsibility to the citizens involved, however much we may disagree with what they have chosen to do legally until now.
Finally, we should consider whether it is adequate to rely on various activities being used as a defence against prosecution. I have read the Bill with care. It will be a defence against prosecution if it can be demonstrated that someone was carrying out certain activities that by implication, but not explicitly referred to in the Bill, were legal.
Some useful points have been made about the control of rats, and how that exclusion would work. As someone who has never defended the mink as a native species of the United Kingdom—I am well aware of the impact that it has on wildlife—I would want to consider how it should be controlled. There is more detailed work to do. I commend the Standing Committee that considers the Bill to undertake that task with rigour.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind hon. Members to be brief. It is clear that many Members wish to contribute to the debate.

Mr. Roger Gale: The Prime Minister said:
The House of Lords prevented the foxhunting Bill from proceeding. —[Official Report, 13 July 2000; Vol. 353, c. 1102.]
That was—[Interruption.]—the Prime Minister. I know that some hon. Members do not like this. He said that in response to a query from me, following three statements on television to the same effect. They were repeated on the record in the House.
The Prime Minister was either deliberately wrong or stupid. Either way, that gives me small confidence that what we are debating is anything other than a cynical exercise designed to get the Prime Minister off the hook from an idiotic undertaking that he knew he could not keep. However, he made it on television, to the effect that the Bill would be on the statute book by the end of this Parliament.
9 pm
I am worried that hundreds, if not thousands, of people outside this place are following the debate and waiting for me to go, as I will, through the Lobby in support of a total ban, believing that the Bill will go on to the statute book. However, all hon. Members know at the bottom of their hearts that there is not a snowball in hell's chance of its being on the statute book, as the Prime Minister promised, by the end of this Parliament. It is no longer any good saying that that is due to the Tory House of Lords. It is Tony's cronies' House of Lords. He created it. No matter how we feel on the subject, it is time that we injected a little honesty into the cynicism that lies behind this.

Mr. Michael Jabez Foster: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Gale: No, I shall be brief.
Another fundamental thesis of dishonesty in tonight's debate is what has become known as the third or middle way. I do not share their view, but I respect those who honestly believe that foxhunting is not cruel, as I respect those on both sides of the House—some of my hon. Friends and many friends on the Labour Benches—who fought alongside me, as I fought alongside them, to bring foxhunting to an end because we believe that it is cruel. A woman cannot be a little bit pregnant. One either believes that hunting must go or that it must stay. Anything in the middle is nothing short of idiotic.
Therefore. I shall go through the Lobby to vote for a total ban tonight, as I always have done. I shall be joined by my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) and other colleagues. That will not deny me the respect of Labour Members, such as the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding), who will go through the other Lobby, because there is a genuine difference of opinion on the matter. It should not be a party political matter.
I want to place on the record tonight two matters that worry me a lot. As I am on the Chairmen's Panel and shall not, therefore, serve on the Standing Committee, I want to know that the Committee will consider these two issues. The first, which has already been referred to, is the possibility, nay probability, that hundreds of hounds, and possibly horses as well, will be destroyed. I want foxhunting to end. I expect that, in due course, the red-top tabloids will print pictures of piles of dead dogs and say that that is what has been done. I am ready for that, but I am not sure whether many supporters of the ban are ready for it.
My friend, the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Mr. Cawsey), the chairman of the all-party animal welfare group, quite properly said that he could not take a foxhound into his own home. My friend, the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) said likewise. I have two labradors, a collie, nine cats and two rabbits in my house and I do not have room for a foxhound either. I am already over-dogged and over-catted by several factors. If we cannot do it, believing the way that we do, I wonder how many of the hundreds, possibly thousands, of foxhounds can be found homes. I fear that many will be destroyed and we need to be ready for that. It is no good ducking the issue.
Secondly, I was delighted to understand that the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will be in the Lobby with us tonight voting for a total ban. I hope that he has spoken to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Prime Minister and that there is an understanding that fallen stock, to whit h my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) referred, will be disposed of. A farming industry in crisis, with farmers facing bankruptcy, unable to employ the services of veterinary surgeons to treat live animals, sure as hell will not be able to dispose of dead bodies that are currently disposed of by the hunt. Those who want a ban, as I do, have to face the hard reality that Judi issues must be dealt with. I am sorry that the Minister of Agriculture is not on the Front Bench tonight to hear what I have to say, but I am sure that he will read it and I hope that those on the Front Bench will realise that at such issues must be dealt with in Standing Committee.
I want the ban, I want the issues dealt with and I want it done by the end of this Parliament, as promised by the Prime Minister. For those reasons, I shall go through the Lobby and vote for a total ban tonight.

Dr. Ian Gibson: I shall be extremely brief. I want to take up issues in chapters 5 and 6 of the Burns report that have not really been examined, concerning the scientific work carried out by Professor David Macdonald of Oxford university on the population management of quarry and the work of Professor Patrick Bateson of Cambridge university on stag hunting. In both cases, and in work with people who have disagreed with them in the past, the professors state that science itself should never be—and, in this case, has not been—the answer to the whole problem, as many other factors must be taken into consideration.
I have heard much tonight about how different techniques are going to control the population numbers of different species. That is balderdash. There is no evidence for it whatever, and science does not purport to make that claim. Much more needs to be done on that front. So much of what has been said by the proponents of hunting tonight is nonsense: it does not control population numbers.
Bateson and his collaborator Harris co-operated with the Burns inquiry and were commissioned to do research. Previously, there was disagreement between them, but they have now made a joint statement, in which they say:
Deer live in relatively small home ranges, moving about them slowly except when disturbed by humans, dogs and vehicles. Nothing in the course if a deer's life resembles being hunted by hounds; known pattern of predation by wolves do not resemble hunting. Taken together with the physiological effects of hunting, it is clear that hunting with hounds would not be tolerated in other areas of animal husbancry.
The Burns inquiry accepted that and said:
scientists agree that deer are likely to suffer in the final stages of hunting.
The only disagreemeat is at what point that occurs. A hunted deer is not like a trained athlete who can stop whenever he feels a little pain. An animal runs in fear of its life when it is t Bing chased. In the last 20 minutes before it dies, it is in a dreadful state, with all sorts of bad chemical imbalances and so on. Every scientist agrees on that.
For that reason, I support the ban. Other reasons have been adduced by Opposition Members. There is much more to do and it is true that there is an absence of


evidence on hunting quarry other than red deer. However, absence of evidence does not mean evidence of absence. The overall conclusion of the whole scientific community is that welfare problems are likely to arise in all so-called sports involving the use of dogs. In that case, how can we not ban hunting? In modern parlance: do not let the dogs out.

Mr. Hogg: May I ask a favour of you, Mrs. Heald? I am conscious of the fact that you want us to be quick. I would not want my speech to last more than eight minutes. If I reach eight minutes, would you be good enough to indicate that? I want to be brief.
If the Bill passes and if hon. Members choose the third option, three things will certainly happen. First, many people—many thousands, probably—will lose their jobs. Secondly, many more thousands will be prevented from doing things that they want to do. I astly, there will be a serious infringement of civil and political liberties. The House should not allow that unless there is a compelling reason for it. Many of my hon. Friends and I believe that there is no such reason.
I have had the opportunity to speak in previous debates on this matter, so I can put my comments in short order. I propose to do so and, if I have time in my eight minutes, I wish to make four points. First, this is essentially a matter of freedom. We must recognise that, in a free society, people must have rights to do things of which others disapprove. We are not living in a free society if we can do only those things of which the majority approve. There are many things of which I disapprove with which I have had to wrestle as a politician and, formerly, as a Minister. For example, I dislike boxing very much, but I would not ban it. When I was Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, I was asked to consider religious slaughter, which, if I am honest, I also dislike, but I would not ban it.
Let us take, for example, homosexuality. We will shortly be asked to consider making lawful sadomasochistic behaviour in groups of consenting adult homosexuals. I find that pretty disgusting, but I do not want it to be subject to criminal law. I shall therefore support such a Bill. I also accept that abortion raises important issues of principle. However, generally speaking, I do not wish to see criminal law intervening in that matter. I am trying to make the point that, in democratic societies, we have to respect the rights of minorities.
My second point is that people like me, who defend foxhunting, are often accused of being the sort of people who would have supported bear baiting and so on. That is simply not true. The proper comparisons with foxhunting are angling, pheasant shooting and other forms of game shooting. I have shot all my life. I did so most recently last Saturday, although rather less well than my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell), with NA horn I have had the pleasure of shooting many times.
I know that pheasants and fish surfer as the process of the sport is conducted. If one is wholly honest, one must recognise that the comparison with the other activities to which I am referring, which I defend, is favourable to fox hunting. Foxes are pests and must be culled; coarse fishes are not pests and do not have to be culled; and pheasants are bred for the purpose of shooting. Foxes either get

away or are killed. On the whole, their deaths are fairly expeditious, but that is not true of pheasant shooting, in which as many pheasants fly away wounded as are brought down dead. The pleasure of coarse fishing lies in the extrication of the fish from the water. They feel pain, are not eaten and are often thrown back into the water. To try to distinguish between those activities is to make a false distinction.
From my time at MAFF, I know that those of us who eat meat are party to processes that are infinitely crueller than foxhunting. Anybody who doubts that should visit an abattoir or poultry-killing plant. I have visited many such places in my life, and I shall not describe the processes that go on there. However, it is clear that the animals in abattoirs are deeply distressed and know that something horrid is happening. If we are discussing cruelty, surely we should focus on the things that really matter, and not on foxhunting.
My third point is procedural. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall), who spoke earlier, is not in his place—at least I do not think he is. I do not believe that hon. Members who represent Scottish constituencies should be voting on the Bill, as it applies exclusively to England and Wales. Surely it is in the nature of democracy that those who make laws are accountable to those affected by them. If their constituents are not affected, there is no accountability at all—and in the absence of accountability, there is a form of tyranny. The precedent established by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) is, therefore, wholly and utterly right. Scottish Members—by which I mean Members who represent Scottish constituencies—should not vote on the Bill.

Mr. Tom Clarke: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way, as he is referring to Scottish Members?

Mr. Hogg: No, I want to press on, as I have put a time limit on my speech.
One can often judge the propriety of an activity by the nature of the people who participate in it. That is certainly the case in respect of fishing. I walk up and down the River Trent every weekend with my dog. I see people fishing—they are often fathers and sons—and I am delighted to see them enjoying themselves. It would be absurd to suggest that such people are embarking on the sort of activity that should be made criminal. However, there is no difference in principle between what they are doing and foxhunting.
When I see people who engage in foxhunting, I recognise that I am dealing with the backbone of rural society. They have often been the first to rally to the colours when the country has gone to war, and many of them serve with the special constabulary. Such people are also often deeply concerned with the environment and are likely to participate in public life. They are, as we used to say, the salt of the earth. To say, of them and to them, that the activities that they pursue, like their fathers and grandfathers before them, should be made criminal is, to my way of thinking, deeply offensive.
This House should be in the business of defending civil and political rights: it is that, rather than indulging our personal prejudice, which is our function. I hope that hon. Members who reflect on that basic truth will vote for the


status quo, which means voting for clause 1. If they cannot bring themselves to do that, they should vote for clause 2. In any event, they should vote against clause 3.

Mr. Cawsey: I will be brief, given the shortage of time.
I will vote for option 3, and I encourage others to do the same. I have just one reason—namely, my belief that there are more humane ways of killing wild mammals. I have listened to what has been said today, but nothing that I have heard has persuaded me that I should change my view. I also think that the issue of hunting with dogs is irrelevant to the issue of pest control: indeed, I believe that the submission of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to the Burns committee used the word "insignificant".
An Opposition Member claimed earlier that the present system selected the weak and the elderly among the fox population. According to the figures in the Burns report, 40 per cent. of deaths caused by foxhunts are deaths of cubs caused by the cubbing process. Cubs hardly fall into the category of the elderly or the sick, and the process involved does not constitute a traditional hunt of the kind with which Members who are present will be acquainted. It involves the repeated surrounding of cubs so that they have no escape, until those participating are inclined to kill.
Forty per cent. of deaths caused by hunting result from that practice, although it is not printed on the card. It is irrelevant in pest-control terms, and it does not kill selectively.
I am convinced that the rural economy does not rely on foxhunting. We have heard any number of selective quotations from the Burns report this evening, but, whatever brief we take from Burns, let us read the text rather than just the bold recommendations. Burns clearly said that the question of job losses in the rural economy being linked with a hunting ban would largely be decided by what hunters did subsequently, and that was especially relevant to the ownership of horses.
We know from the results of a poll undertaken only a few months ago that, when asked whether they would ride less or more following a ban, all but 6 per cent. of horse riders said that the ban would make no difference. Of the 6 per cent. who said that it would make a difference, 3 per cent. said they would ride less and 3 per cent. said they would ride more. I do not think that the rural reliance on hunting is anywhere near as great as it is being made out to be.
Animal welfare is an issue for me, and for many other Members. We have heard an awful lot about foxes this evening, a little about hares, a very small amount about mink, but hardly anything—if anything—about deer. I am not surprised that no one wants to speak up in favour of deer hunting. I see no excuse for anyone, in a civilised society, to stalk a deer, make it stay where it is and return the following day to hunt it for many hours, using dogs which, because they are moving more slowly, lead it to believe that it has escaped, and to relax. The dogs, which have greater stamina, eventually overcome it, so that when it is totally exhausted, it either stands at bay or gives up and lies down. Then the dogs get it, and it is usually shot anyway.
If the deer has been stalked the previous day, why does it take 24 hours to get round to putting a bullet through it? I see no justification for such practices, and I am not surprised that no Member has sought to defend them today, although I am disappointed that more did not speak against them.
There are, of course, alternatives for those who wish to enjoy the countryside in this traditional way. I have seen the New Forest drag hunt, and I am sure that people will adopt that practice wren this ban has been imposed.
I want to say a little about licensing, and what I consider to be the perceived weakness of it. The middle way option—or, at any rate, what I think we are finally seeing tonight: a semi-complete set of options that will lead to a full set of options later—is not a new idea. We already have licensed meetings. The New Forest hunt is a licensed hunt, taking place on forestry land. Although that hunt is licensed we still have horrendous problems with it. There is still hunt havoc. There is still trespass on private land, there are still problems caused by loss of control of the pack— — it is very difficult to licence for that—and there are till problems with digging out. The New Forest hunt licence prohibits digging out, but it still happens. It is absurd to believe that, after licensing, all the problems will suddenly go away.
Nye Bevan used to say "You don't have to look into the crystal ball when you can read the book." You do not have to look into the crystal ball of licensing; it exists in England now, and it does not work. That is the only important point: it does not work.
We have heard a lot about liberties. The hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) said that the measure would put severe restrictions on tens of thousands of constituents' liberties. Someone else said that it did not affect anyone else. I disagree. I shall tell hon. Members why.
I have one of the largest rural constituencies. We do not have a hunt, but we sometimes have a visiting hunt. One visiting hunt came off the private land that it had been authorised to use. It went through the village and ended up in a constituent's garden. The fox was trapped. The family had to witness the huntsmen moving in, grabbing the fox and throwing it live to the hounds, which is against the hunt's own rules. The family then had to watch the fox being ripped to shreds. They said that the sight and sounds would live with them for ever.
The RSPCA took statements because the fox was "captive" and therefore protected by law. The society had a strong case for prosecution, but just before the matter went to court, the statements were withdrawn. The people in the village could no longer stand the intimidation and hassle that they were getting. Hon. Members talk about liberties, but there are other people's liberties as well. My constituents want to live in their house and on their land and to enjoy their gardens without having to put up with the activities of the hunt and the intimidation that follows their attempts to raise the matter.
When I visited the New Forest drag hunt in 1999, as I approached the gates, a large man jumped out and took my photograph. It was not the new-found celebrity status that I was hoping for—I found out that he was taking everyone's photograph. When I asked the organiser of the drag hunt why, he said that the man was from the hunt and was ensuring that everyone in the village saw who went to the hunt and was letting the side down. People


have a liberty to attend such an event and not be photographed and have their photographs passed around the local community. There is a liberty for those people, too. They are the people whom we should be trying to support.

Mr. Öpik: I agree that the abuses should be stopped. May I ask the hon. Gentleman a simple question. If he has the time, can he comment on t le thoughtful speech by the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd), who is supporting the same option as him? That is not a trick question. I am genuinely interested.

Mr. Cawsey: As the hon. Gentle man knows, I take a great interest in all sorts of animal welfare issues. If we can tackle issues through the all-party group that I chair, or through other hon. Members, I would be interested in working on those solutions.

Sir Richard Body: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Cawsey: The hon. Gentleman has only just come into the Chamber. Some of us have been here all day. There is little time left.
What about pensioner Moira Lamb, who was walking her dog Candy, who was attacked by a hunt? Attempting to protect her dog, Moira Lamb covered her with her body. She says:
the hounds were all around us and on top of me. I thought I was going to have a heart attack but I held on tightly because I knew that if they got hold of her they would rip her apart … The whole incident lasted for at least five minutes … eventually a hunter arrived … I demanded that they take mt to a vet. They seemed reluctant and asked if I had a car myself.
A grandmother was collecting her grandchildren from school. They watched as a pack of hounds tore into the fox. She said that they saw dogs
ripping it apart in front of us … no one from the hunt was at the scene and … the dogs were running riot through people's gardens and through a children's play area. Many if them were covered in blood … children were fending off the logs with their satchels. The poor kids were terrified.
The hunt took half an hour to arrive.
Hon. Members have mentioned sheep farmers. A sheep farmer from Gloucestershire said:
Over 20 years I have suffered more damage through the activities of the hunt than ever from those of the fox
That farmer then goes on to talk about trespass, about the local hunt damaging gates, about the death of pregnant ewes, about the trampling of lambs and—this is the point—about the fear of reprisal:
It may be hard to understand but. intimidated by events and fearful of reprisals from the hunting set, it was only after all these incidents that I plucked up the courage to complain to them. I asked them to let me know when they would be in the area—they refused.
In whose liberty is the House interested?
I give a final example from Essex. Villagers in Woodham Walter are sick of the hunt coming through their village. They drew up a petition and held demonstrations against it. We are talking about a quiet, leafy al part of Essex. The newspaper said:
The villagers decided to protest after violence … broke out at a hunt … and resulted in six arrests.

The spokeswoman said: 'We want to make it known the vast majority in Woodham Walter do object to the shattering of the peaceful enjoyment of their property.
This is our village—we should have some rights but our rights are just being thrown out of the window.'
Douglas Hill, joint master of the hunt, said … 'We don't have to inform the villagers. What has it got to do with the villagers?'
That is what we are discussing. It is a libertarian issue. People are living in fear of reprisals and living in a repressed state because of the activities of the hunt. When we vote tonight, we vote for a total ban because that is the only thing that will liberate those people.

Mr. Hancock: I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Mr. Cawsey). He was right to cite the New Forest hunt as a classic example of how a licensed hunt cannot adhere to the rules. That hunt was in breach of the rules as recently as Boxing day, when the only thing it killed was a year-old cub. At first the hunt denied killing the cub, but it finally gave in when three lots of video film shot at the scene were produced. It then admitted that it had killed the cub and broken its licence.
I represent the inner-city heart of Portsmouth, which is one of the most densely populated parts of the United Kingdom. I was born and brought up there, and I have no connection with the rural areas outside Portsmouth except that I now live on the fringes of Portsmouth. Nevertheless, I am totally opposed to hunting. Why? I am against it because, 30-odd years ago, I went to my first hunt, in the hope of trying to prevent a fox being killed. In the past 30 years, I have been to dozens of hunts, most recently on Boxing day in the New Forest.
My experience at that New Forest hunt was quite interesting, as there were probably more policemen helping the huntsmen to cross the major roads of the New Forest than there were patrolling Portsmouth, which is a city of 200,000 people. One interesting fact is that in the past year the New Forest hunt has killed more of its own hounds than foxes. It has lost nine hounds, but admitted to killing four foxes.
The figures for the cost of patrolling the New Forest hunt's 26 meets in the past year are quite stark. A total of 613 riders were counted at the meets, which is an average of 24 per meet. They killed two foxes on Forestry Commission land, and two that went to ground on private land, using terrier men who dug out the foxes and shot them. Police, railway police and Forestry Commission representatives attended each of the meets. The total cost of policing just those 26 meets of the New Forest hunt was more than £20,000.
It has been interesting to hear the reasons given by hon. Members for voting for a ban. However, we should vote to ban foxhunting for the simple reason that the deaths of foxes in hunts are cruel and obscene. Those who have been at a hunt when a fox is killed will know what the kill sounds like, and those who have seen a kill will know that the memory of it will stay with them. Those who advocate hunting could never have been anywhere near a hunt when a fox is killed. If they had been, they could not possibly justify opposing a ban by citing an infringement of liberties.
What liberty and whose liberty do ban opponents think is at stake? It is certainly not the right to dress in hunting garb, to own a horse or to ride a horse across the countryside with dogs and accompanied by friends.


The only liberty that will be removed is the one to kill a wild animal in the most obscene and grotesque way. That is what the debate is about.
The third way is an impossible dream and makes Don Quixote look positively sane. My hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) could not even say how regulation would be policed or operated. We cannot regulate cruelty. A practice is either cruel or it is not. We either allow a practice or we do not. Some people honourably maintain that they want hunting to be allowed, but one cannot honourably maintain that it is possible to licence cruelty. That in itself is an obscenity and has to be rejected.
People have been duped into believing that this mythical third way is possible. As I said, however, it would be about as effective as Don Quixote tilting at windmills. It really is a fool's dream. The only real choice today is between allowing and stopping hunting. After 30 years of campaigning against hunting and attending dozens of hunts, I believe that there is no answer but to ban it.
My experience on Boxing day was that the only potential problem arose when some huntsmen on horses demanded that a person in a wheelchair be moved so that they could go down a path to which they thought they had right of access. Most huntsmen riding that way had gone the long way around, but some stopped and insisted that the person in the wheelchair be moved. That was the closest thing to confrontation that occurred.
9.30 pm
There were probably nearly 200 demonstrators present at the Boxing day hunt. I was proud to be there with my family. I was proud, too, to witness the good discipline of the anti-hunt campaign's reaction. What was hideous was the delight that some of the hunt participants evinced at the fact that the only kill that they achieved was that of a year-old cub. That is why we should all be ashamed to allow hunting to continue, and why we should be proud to go into the Lobby tonight and vote to throw it out once and for all.

Mr. Paul Stinchcombe: My contribution will be short, as I wish to cover only one issue. It is that of civil liberties, which has been mentioned by most Opposition Members who have spoken. The argument for civil liberties has been the loudest that we have heard tonight, and is probably the strongest that can be adduced against a total ban on foxhunting. I disagree with that argument.
I hope that I do no disservice to the argument by saying that it asserts that a ban on foxhunting threatens to criminalise law-abiding citizens simply for exercising their free will to enjoy a recreational country pursuit. In that way, the argument runs, we would offend against people's fundamental civil liberty to carry on hunting. I share those civil libertarian instincts, and I am proud to describe myself as a civil libertarian, but I wish to put on record why I profoundly disagree with the assertion that I have just set out and why I will vote tonight for a total ban.
In the modern world, civil liberties do not give us liberty to do everything that we want. They give us the liberty to do certain things, constrained by our

responsibilities for our actions. Liberty is for ever constrained. It is surrounded and hedged in by our potential liability for what we do.
We recognise that every day in respect of our responsibilities towards other human beings. We accept that civil law constrains our liberty. We owe a duty to our neighbour to take reasonable care, not to trespass on his land, and not to act unreasonably so as to cause nuisance. We accept also that our liberty is properly constrained by criminal law and that, if we breach criminal code imperatives, our liberty can be taken away.
We accept also that the duty is owed not only to other human beings, but to the environment and to animals and their welfare. That is why, in certain circumstances, we can be convicted of a criminal offence for causing pollution, and why certain activities and leisure pursuits affecting animals—bear baiting and badger baiting, for example, among others—have been banned in the past.
In a civilised society, when we assume the right to kill animals we assume two further responsibilities—that we will not exercise the right other than for good reason, and that we will exercise it only in the least cruel way possible. As a civil libertarian, I therefore ask myself three simple questions. Is there a good reason to kill? Is hunting with dogs the least cruel method of making that kill? If not, is the extra cruelty involved none the less justified?
I accept that there can be good reasons for killing foxes, if not for killing hares. I say that even though, as a vegetarian, I have not eaten meat for 20 years. I used to wear shiny plastic shoes—until my noble and learned Friend Lord Irvine of Lairg, my former head of chambers, told me that I could not go into chambers dressed like that.
The second question is not whether hunting with dogs is so unusually cruel that we should ban it, but whether it should be allowed because it is the least cruel method of killing. I have read all the evidence and listened to all the debate, and I simply contend that it is not the least cruel method of killing.
The final question is whether there is, none the less, some compelling reason for allowing that additional cruelty to take place In my view, there is none. It is not a case of the welfare of the hounds—there are no geriatric hounds, because they are killed anyway. It is not a case of jobs, because jot s should not trade in cruelty. It is not tradition, because we should not allow traditions to continue if they are cruel, and it can never be pleasure, because human gratification does not justify killing anything.

Mr. Robathan: I am very grateful for the opportunity to speak, albeit briefly. This measure gives more pleasure to Back-Bench Labour Members than almost anything else has done in the past three and a half years. The hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Etherington), who has been in the House for eight and a half years, said that this was what he had been waiting for. That is extremely sad, in my opinion, but it is what this is all about. This is a bone to faithful hounds—a sop to loyal supporters. It is to turn out the cc re vote before the election—we all know that.
I do not usually quote Oscar Wilde, but he wrote, very amusingly, of the unspeakable in pursuit of the uneatable. On this occasion, tint refers to Labour Back Benchers— many of whom are usually quite decent—in pursuit of the uneatable huntsman.
On Radio 4 this morning, the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien), refused to accept that fishing was cruel or that it had anything to do with the Government. To those who believe that this is about cruelty, let me quote from a report entitled "Pain and Stress in Fish", prepared by Mr. Kestin of the university of Bristol school of veterinary science and last updated in 1994. It says that the society's policy is
to oppose the infliction of pain and suffering in the name of sport.
The report refers to evidence that strongly confirms that fish can suffer pain and distress. It goes on to say:
the case for fish feeling pain is surprisingly complete.
Finally, it says:
the pain fish feel as a result of injury is likely to be just as important to them in their own way as human pain is to humans.
So I say to those who fish but wish to ban hunting that it is not a question of cruelty but of hypocrisy.
I do not hunt, but I have been to meets. I shoot, but I do not particularly like watching football. I do not want to spend my Saturday afternoons careering around the countryside after a fox, breaking my neck on a horse; nor do I want to spend them with a football jersey pulled over my distended stomach, waving a scarf, half drunk, walking up and down the streets of West Ham or Chelsea and chanting. However, I defend the right of those who wish to do so, as long as they do not unreasonably infringe other people's rights.
When 700-odd English fans were arrested in Charleroi last year, who called for the banning of football? Not many, but it was a serious incident. How many huntsmen have been arrested in the past 10 years for committing any infringement of other people's rights?
I said that I would be brief. We know that the Bill will be passed in the House of Commons. It will be passed to cheers from some of the more mean-minded on the Labour Benches. [Interruption.] They laugh now, but it is mean-mindedness and chippyness, and it is very distressing.
The public in general do not really care about this issue. I spoke to a Minister some time ago—before he was a Minister—who said that he could not care two hoots about hunting, but 300 or 400 people in his constituency were passionately opposed to it. As most of them were in his constituency Labour party, he said that he would vote against hunting. That is what the issue is about. The legislation that will be passed tonight will be shabby and shoddy. It will be cheered by those who should be ashamed of themselves for persecuting others who want to do something that they do not want to do.

Mr. Bercow: So far, 28 right hon. and hon. Members have spoken in the debate. None did so better than my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington), in opening for the Opposition Front Bench and speaking in his own cause. He was explicit in his support of the present arrangements. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) wisely pointed to the problems of enforcement that seem set to result from the Bill.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples) sensibly underlined, as someone needed to do, the passionate support for hunting that, whether right hon. and hon. Members like it or not, exists and is

pervasive in our rural communities. My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) underlined the danger, at which hon. Members are unwise to skit, of a rural-urban divide. My hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Townend) highlighted the arguments for freedom.
From my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) we had a speech that was wise, shrewd and characteristic of a country dweller who knows about the subject on which he speaks. I was especially pleased to welcome back to the bosom of the Committee my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson). My only problem with him, one with which I will seek to assist him, is that he has a dangerous habit of understating his case.
I have two hunts in my constituency—the Bicester hunt with Whaddon chase and the Vale of Aylesbury hunt. My hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury made his position clear. I shall follow suit and make mine explicit. I shall vote, and with gusto, for option 1. I shall, if pressed and with some reluctance, support option 2, and I shall vote against option 3 with pride coursing through my veins for the simple reason that it is unjust, unfair, improper and a chronic waste of the time of the Committee.
In this debate—there have been dissenting contributions of which the contributors can be justly proud, including my hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale)—there are certain central arguments, the first of which is about cruelty. Despite the fact that we seek to magnify the differences between us, there is consensus between landowners, farmers, gamekeepers, conservationists and, belatedly perhaps, even political parties that the fox population needs to be controlled. The question is not whether it is to be controlled, but how to do so. As Burns rightly observed, none of the legal methods of fox control is without difficulty. Whether one deployed gassing, snaring, shooting, trapping or even tamping, problems would abound.
Lamping is not a practical proposition in upland areas. It is extraordinarily difficult to envisage how at night it can be expected that that method will distinguish between a healthy young vixen and a mangy old fox. The truth is that it would do nothing of the kind. In respect of hunting, however disagreeable the fact may be for right hon. and hon. Members whose prejudices are well established and unlikely to change, Burns emphasised that in the vast majority of cases the time between insensibility and death is no more than a few seconds.
So the simple reality is that the welfare case has not been made. Hon. Members seem to think that if, with sufficient frequency and venom, they spout the mantra of animal welfare and the need to prevent cruelty, that will somehow make their case. They ought to realise that there is a distinction between argument by advocacy and argument by evidence. There is plenty from them of the former and precious little of the latter.
I confess that I am inclined to salivate about the liberty argument. The reason why I get excited about liberty is that as a Conservative and a believer in the individual citizen, I regard liberty as a determining feature of my philosophy and so do my right hon. and hon. Friends. I make the point now which should not need to be emphasised, but under this Government more than ever does, that one of the curses of our times is the progression from the observation, "I do not like" to "It should be


banned." That is not a wise, obvious or logical progression. It is not a progression that is worthy of or does credit to a mature parliamentary democracy.
9.45 pm
I happen to believe that the problem with most Labour Members—it does not apply to them all, and certainly not to the Minister for Sport—is that they greet with blank incomprehension assertions based on the principles of liberty. They do so because most socialists do not believe in liberty, and the best that they can do is to believe that they believe in liberty. That is not the same thing at all.
If those Labour Members want to have their way, are hell-bent on doing their worst, and are determined to criminalise a whole section of the population, they can, of course, do so. However, to display the indifference, disdain and rank contempt for other points of view and for the pursuit of an alternative life style, as Labour Members have done tonight, is deplorable in a free society. If people want to hunt, they will hunt. Wealthy people in particular will go to France, Spain, Sweden or Italy and hunt if they wish to do so.
Hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people stand four-square in support of hunting, but do not engage in the practice. As Labour Members know, I hail from the wing of the Conservative party that pays mortgages and buys its own furniture. I went to a comprehensive school, I use the national health service and I do not practise country sports. I have never done so and have no desire to do so, but I defend passionately, consistently and without apology those who exercise their liberty to do so.

Miss Anne McIntosh: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Bercow: I give way to my hon. Friend. How could I resist?

Miss McIntosh: The prospect of my hon. Friend salivating is obviously intensely pleasurable.
Will my hon. Friend comment on the prospect of an action being brought in a local magistrates court in this country for a breach of civil liberties under the European convention on human rights?

Mr. Bercow: Such an eventuality is plausible. I do not find the prospect particularly attractive, but it might prove necessary. It would be a crying shame if the House of Commons so reduced itself that, instead of protecting liberty by its own decisions, it ended up having to tell members of the great British public that they had to look elsewhere for their protection.
Option 1 proposes an independent supervisory authority comprising people with real expertise, proven dedication and a track record of knowledge, commitment and care. Option 2 would, I fear, be expensive and complex, although I do not sniff at the motives of its proponents. I believe that they deserve respect. However, I hope that the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) will understand when I say that the problems of the option that he adumbrated were made ever clearer as he progressed through his speech, which lasted for more than 25 minutes.

Mr. Hoyle: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Bercow: No, I will not.
The third option is to criminalise, to use the full force of the law to arrest and charge people and even, ultimately, to put them in prison if they do not pay their fines, simply because they do not subscribe to the principles of Labour Members and dare to live their lives according to different it ones. We are witnessing from Labour Members—we see it clearly at this time of night, 9.48—nothing but a triumph of intolerance. That is sad, miserable and deplorable.
In present circumstances, legislating on hunting displays the most astonishing perversity of priorities. There is a crisis in the countryside—the worst of its kind for 60 years—in which every agricultural price is down, suicide rates in the farming community are up and a real sense of despair exists as to whether there will ever be better times ahead. Class sizes are rising, the fight against crime is weaker, our transport system is more congested, the millennium dome is a fiasco and an obscenity, yet we have a tranche of Bills on licensing, consumer affairs, vaccines, referendums and mental health. Each and every one of those Bills has been regarded by the Government as less important than the pursuit of this abominable, politically correct fetish of criminalising those people with whom the Government and Labour Back Benchers happen to disagree.
The Bill is wrong; it is untimely and illiberal. The Bill stinks to high heaven and the great majority of my right hon. and hon. Friends will vote for option 1. They might suffer option 2, but they rightly loathe, despise and will vote against option 3

Mr. Mike O'Brien: I never thought that I would hear the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) described as politically correct. Furthermore, to describe one's boss as intolerant is bizarre, but I suppose that from time to time we, too, have described the right hon. Lady as intolerant.
This has been a good debate—[HON. MEMBERS: "Where is your boss?"] I can easily say that my boss is someone who will always consider the seriousness and reason of debate—sometimes he comes to the right conclusion.
The subject of hunting arouses emotions on all sides of the debate. That has been reflected in today's proceedings, but we also saw a greater degree of seriousness and concern as to the rationale of the arguments. That is one of the benefits of the Burns report and the Government's decision to set up that inquiry. The Government have introduced the Bill at this time because we made a manifesto commitment and the measure fits within our overall programme.
The development of the debate has been extremely good. Several valuable contributions were made today. The hon. Members for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) and for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) made thoughtful speeches in support of their point of view.
The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) and my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding) support the middle way—again, I almost called it the third way. My hon. Friends the Members for Worcester (Mr. Foster) and for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) put strong arguments.
I draw special attention to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Workington. He said that the prospect of people with rifles walking around a national park in Cumbria should be considered seriously by the


advocates of those who were thinking of voting for a ban. We must consider not only our overa11 view of the matter, but how we might deal with any difficulties that might arise. That is a lesson not only for those who may vote for the third schedule but for all those who may vote for each of the schedules.
The right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) made a strong argument. He used his speech to complain about crime and police numbers—he who, from 1993, presided over budgets that cut police numbers by 1,500. Over the whole period of Conservative Government, crime doubled.

Mr. Howard: rose—

Mr. O'Brien: Perhaps those arguments are for another place—[HON. MEMBERS: "Give way."] I shall give way to the right hon. and learned Gentleman in a moment—[Interruption.]

The Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. It is entirely up to the Minister whether he gives way. I appeal to the Committee, on what is an important and emotive occasion, that the debate should conclude in the same equable manner in which it has been conducted throughout.

Mr. O'Brien: I am grateful to you, Sir Alan—[HON. MEMBERS: "Give way") I said that I would give way to the right hon. and learned Gentleman in a moment. I think that he will want to hear what I have to say next.
Whichever schedule we choose, the police will have the benefit of the 9,000 extra recruits in our police budget.
In defence of foxhunters, I echo the views expressed on Second Reading by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve), who has been in his place during this debate, and, to some extent today, by the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson). They pointed out that most foxhunters are decent and law-abiding—they may not agree with the law, but most of them are not law breakers. Foxhunters may seek to reverse a law that they oppose—that is their democratic right—but most of them will not cause a great draw on police time.

Mr. Howard: rose—

Mr. O'Brien: I will give way in a moment. The right hon. and learned Gentleman should let me finish the argument, then he can deal with it.
The hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) said that foxhunts are medium-sized businesses, so hunting is unlikely to be carried out surreptitiously. However, the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) told us that there may be a problem with hare coursing, and we shall have to deal with that issue.

Mr. Howard: Does the Minister accept that any comparison should be made on the basis of accurate facts? So will he accept that the number of police officers was rising towards the end of my period in office; that the number of police constables did not fall at all; that robbery fell sharply in the last year for which I was responsible; and that crime overall fell by 18 per cent. during the four years that I was Home Secretary?

Mr. O'Brien: I am not sure whether that is a matter for debate now, but crime doubled under the Conservative

Government. The right hon. and learned Gentleman was a member of the House during that time, and police numbers fell after he left office under the budgets that he set, but let us deal with the Bill.
Other important issues were raised. Liberty was referred to throughout the debate. The hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples) set out the case on liberty. He said that the fundamental contention was that liberty should not be restricted. It is clearly a restriction on liberty to regulate or ban hunting. One option would perhaps be more onerous than the other, but both would represent restrictions on liberty. The House is the custodian of the balance between preserving the liberty of the individual and the need to criminalise certain activities. The law is the baseline of shared values and obligations in society, and we must decide where that baseline should be set. It is Parliament's responsibility to debate and resolve such difficult issues. That is why we are here; it is what we were elected to do.
The hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon said that liberty is the over-riding issue. My hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) believed that cruelty is the over-riding issue. Of course, each Member has to make a judgment. The hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire claimed that if hunting were banned, shooting and fishing would be the campaigners next target. He is right to say that the campaigners may make that their next campaign, but the Government are unequivocal on the point. Let me reassure those who may be concerned that, whatever happens tonight, there will be no ban on fishing or shooting under a Government led by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.
I remind the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas), who spoke for Plaid Cymru, that Wales and England form a common jurisdiction and that the power to decide whether to ban hunting has not been transferred to the National Assembly for Wales. There would have to be a stronger argument than that which he has used today to impose a territorial distinction on the grounds of their merely being different countries, given that they have a common legal system. He should not press his amendments to a Division. If he does, I shall invite my hon. Friends to vote against them.
The Bill has allowed all hon. Members to have their say today and on Second Reading. On Second Reading, the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) reminded us that we are representatives of our constituents, not delegates, and that we owe our constituents our judgment, our conscience and our sense of morality. Without fear or favour, each of us must exercise his or her vote today, each on a free vote. Others have set out their views. I will exercise my judgment having read the Burns report. I have considered my conscience on the views of liberty and cruelty.
I will vote according to the sense of morality that the debate has given me. I will vote the way that I promised my constituents that I would vote. I will vote against the liberty to be cruel; I will vote for a ban on hunting. I am sure that all hon. Member know that they will have to decide how their consciences dictate they vote. I now invite hon. Members to follow their consciences and to vote so that we can set out on the road by which this vexed issue will be resolved.
It being Ten o'clock, THE CHAIRMAN put the Question, pursuant to Orders [7 November and 20 December 2000].
Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 155, Noes 399.

Division No. 60]
[10 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Hawkins, Nick


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Hayes, John


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Heald, Oliver


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David


Baldry, Tony
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas


Beggs, Roy
Horam, John


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)


Bercow, John
Hunter, Andrew


Beresford, Sir Paul
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Blunt, Crispin
Jenkin, Bernard


Body, Sir Richard
Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Boswell, Tim



Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Key, Robert


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Brady, Graham
Kirkbride, Miss Julie


Brazier, Julian
Kirkwood, Archy


Breed, Colin
Laing, Mrs Eleanor


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Browning, Mrs Angela
Lansley, Andrew


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Leigh, Edward


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Letwin, Oliver


Burnett, John
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)


Burns, Simon
Lidington, David


Butterfill, John
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)
Livsey, Richard



Lioyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Cash, William
Loughton, Tim


Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas



McCartney, Robert (N Down)


Chope, Christopher
McCrea, Dr William


Clappison, James
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)
McIntosh, Miss Anne


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew



Maclean, Rt Hon David


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
McLoughlin, Patrick


Collins, Tim
Malins, Humfrey


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Maples, John


Cran, James
Mates, Michael


Curry, Rt Hon David
Maude, Rt Hon Francis


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
May, Mrs Theresa


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Moore, Michael


Duncan, Alan
Moss, Malcolm


Duncan Smith, Iain
Nicholls, Patrick


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Norman, Archie


Evans, Nigel
O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)


Faber, David
Page, Richard


Failon, Michael
Paice, James


Flight, Howard
Paterson, Owen


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Pickles, Eric


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Fox, Dr Liam
Prior, David


Fraser, Christopher
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Garnier, Edward
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)


Gibb, Nick
Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Ruffley, David


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Sayeed, Jonathan


Gray, James
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian


Green, Damian
Shepherd, Richard


Greenway, John
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Grieve, Dominic
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Gummer, Rt Hon John
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Hague, Rt Hon William
Soames, Nicholas


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Spelman, Mrs Caroline


Hammond, Philip
Spicer, Sir Michael


Harvey, Nick
Spring, Richard





Steen, Anthony
Walter, Robert


Streeter, Gary
Wardle, Charles


Swayne, Desmond
Waterson, Nigel


Syms, Robert
Wells, Bowen


Tapsell, Sir Peter
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)
Whittingdale, John


Temple-Morris, Peter
Wilkinson, John



Townend, John
Willetts, David


Tredinnick, David
Wilshire, David


Trend, Michael
Yeo, Tim


Trimble, Rt Hon David
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Tyler, Paul
Tellers for the Ayes:


Tyrie, Andrew
Mr. Christopher Gill and


Viggers, Peter
Mr. Andrew Robathan.


NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Cann, Jamie


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Caplin, Ivor


Ainger, Nick
Casale, Roger


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Caton, Martin


Alexander, Douglas
Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)


Allan, Richard
Chaytor, David


Allen, Graham
Clapham, Michael


Amess, David
Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary



Ashton, Joe
Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)


Atherton, Ms Candy
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)


Atkins, Charlotte
Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)


Austin, John
Clelland, David


Bailey, Adrian
Clwyd, Ann


Baker, Norman
Coaker, Vernon


Ballard, Jackie
Coffey, Ms Ann


Banks, Tony
Cohen, Harry


Barnes, Harry
Coleman, Iain


Barron, Kevin
Colman, Tony


Bayley, Hugh
Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)


Beard, Nigel
Cooper, Yvette


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Corbett, Robin


Begg, Miss Anne
Corbyn, Jeremy


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Corston, Jean


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Cotter, Brian


Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)
Cousins, Jim


Bennett, Andrew F
Cox, Tom


Benton, Joe
Cranston, Ross


Bermingham, Gerald
Crausby, David


Berry, Roger
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)


Best, Harold
Cummings, John


Betts, Clive
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Blackman, Liz
Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire


Blears, Ms Hazel
Darting, Rt Hon Alistair


Blizzard, Bob
Darvill, Keith


Blunkett, Rt Hon David
Davey, Edward (Kingston)


Boateng, Rt Hon Paul
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Borrow, David
Davidson, Ian


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)


Bradshaw, Ben
Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)


Brake, Tom
Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)


Brand, Dr Peter



Brinton, Mrs Helen
Dawson, Hilton


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Day, Stephen


Browne, Desmond
Dean, Mrs Janet


Buck, Ms Karen
Denham, John


Burden, Richard
Dismore, Andrew


Burgon, Colin
Dobbin, Jim


Burstow, Paul
Dobson, Rt Hon Frank


Butler, Mrs Christine
Donohoe, Brian H


Byers, Rt Hon Stephen
Doran, Frank


Cable, Dr Vincent
Dowd, Jim


Caborn, Rt Hon Richard
Drew, David


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Drown, Ms Julia


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bndge)
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)






Edwards, Huw
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Efford, Clive
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)


Ellman, Mrs Louise
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Etherington, Bill
Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa


Feam, Ronnie
Joyce, Eric


Fieid, Rt Hon Frank
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Fitzpatrick, Jim
Keeble, Ms Sally


Flint, Caroline
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)


Flynn, Paul
Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)


Follett, Barbara
Kelly, Ms Ruth


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness W)


Foster, Don (Bath)



Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)


Foulkes, George
Khabra, Piara S


Fyfe, Maria
Kidney, David


Gale, Roger
Kilfoyle, Peter


Galloway, George
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)


Gapes, Mike
King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)


Gardiner, Barry
Kingham, Ms Tess


George, Andrew (St Ives)
Kumar, Dr Ashok


Gerrard, Neil
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Gibson, Dr Ian
Lammy, David


Gidley, Sandra
Lawrence, Mrs Jackie


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
Laxton, Bob


Godsiff, Roger
Lepper, David


Goggins, Paul
Leslie, Christopher


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
Levitt, Tom


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Lewis, Terry (Wotsley)


Grocott, Bruce
Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen


Grogan, John
Linton, Martin


Gunnell, John
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)


Hain, Peter
Lock, David


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
Love, Andrew


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
McAvoy, Thomas


Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
McCabe, Steve


Hancock, Mike
McCafferty, Ms Chris


Hanson, David
McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)


Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet



Harris, Dr Evan
McDonagh, Siobhain


Healey, John
Macdonald, Calum


Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
McDonnell, John


Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)
McFall, John


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
McGuire, Mrs Anne


Hendrick, Mark
McIsaac, Shona


Hepburn, Stephen
Mackinlay, Andrew


Heppell, John
McNamara, Kevin


Hesford, Stephen
McNulty, Tony


Hinchliffe, David
MacShane, Denis



Hodge, Ms Margaret
Mactaggart, Fiona


Hood, Jimmy
McWalter, Tony


Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
McWilliam, John


Hope, Phil
Mallaber, Judy


Hopkins, Kelvin
Marek, Dr John


Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Howells, Dr Kim
Marshall-Andrews, Robert


Hoyle, Lindsay
Martlew, Eric


Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)
Maxton, John


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Meacher, Rt Hon Michael


Humble, Mrs Joan
Meale, Alan


Hurst, Alan
Merron, Gillian


Hutton, John
Michael, Rt Hon Alun


Iddon, Dr Brian
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
Milburn, Rt Hon Alan


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Miller, Andrew


Jamieson, David
Mitchell, Austin


Jenkins, Brian
Moffatt, Laura


Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)
Moonie, Dr Lewis



Moran, Ms Margaret


Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)
Morley, Elliot


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)




Mountford, Kali


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie





Mudie, George
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Mullin, Chris
Snape, Peter


Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Soley, Clive


Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)
Southworth, Ms Helen


Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)
Spellar, John


Naysmith, Dr Doug
Squire, Ms Rachel


Norris, Dan
Steinberg, Gerry


O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Stevenson, George


Olner, Bill
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


O'Neill, Martin
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Organ, Mrs Diana
Stinchcombe, Paul


Osborne, Ms Sandra
Stoate, Dr Howard


Palmer, Dr Nick

Straw, Rt Hon Jack


Pearson, Ian
Stringer, Graham


Perham, Ms Linda
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Pickthall, Colin
Stunell, Andrew


Pike, Peter L
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Plaskitt, James
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Pollard, Kerry



Pond, Chris
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)



Pope, Greg
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Pound, Stephen
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Powell, Sir Raymond
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Prescott, Rt Hon John
Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)


Primarolo, Dawn
Thompson, William


Prosser, Gwyn
Timms, Stephen


Purchase, Ken
Tipping, Paddy


Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce
Todd, Mark


Quinn, Lawrie
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Radice, Rt Hon Giles
Touhig, Don


Rammell, Bill
Truswell, Paul


Randall, John
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Rapson, Syd
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Raynsford, Nick
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)
Turner, Neil (Wigan)


Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Rendel, David
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)
Tynan, Bill



Vaz, Keith


Robinson, Geoffrey (CoVtry NW)
Vis, Dr Rudi


Roche, Mrs Barbara
Walley, Ms Joan


Rogers, Allan
Ward, Ms Claire


Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff
Wareing, Robert N


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Watts, David


Roy, Frank
Webb, Steve


Ruane, Chris
White, Brian


Ruddock, Joan
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Wicks, Malcolm


Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Ryan, Ms Joan
Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd


Salter, Martin
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Sanders, Adrian



Sarwar, Mohammad
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Sawford, Phil
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Sedgemore, Brian
Willis, Phil


Shaw, Jonathan
Wills, Michael


Sheerman, Barry
Winnick, David


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Wood, Mike


Shipley, Ms Debra
Woodward, Shaun



Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
Woolas, Phil


Singh, Marsha
Worthington, Tony


Skinner, Dennis
Wray, James


Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Wright, Tony (Cannock)


Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)
Wyatt, Derek


Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)




Tellers for the Noes:


Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)
Mr. Ian Cawsey and


Smith, John (Glamorgan)
Mr. Michael J. Foster.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 2

HUNTING WITH DOGS: REGULATION

Motion made, and Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 182, Noes 382.

Division No. 61]
[10.14 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Gray, James


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Green, Damian


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Greenway, John


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Grieve, Dominic


Baldry, Tony
Gummer, Rt Hon John


Beggs, Roy
Hague, Rt Hon William


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Hammond, Philip


Bercow, John
Harris, Dr Evan


Beresford, Sir Paul
Harvey, Nick


Blunkett, Rt Hon David
Hawkins, Nick


Blunt, Crispin
Hayes, John


Body, Sir Richard
Heald, Oliver


Boswell, Tim
Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Hoey, Kate


Brady, Graham
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas


Brazier, Julian
Horam, John


Breed, Colin
Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Hunter, Andrew


Browning, Mrs Angela
Jack, Rt Hon Michael


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Jenkin, Bernard


Burnett, John
Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Burns, Simon



Butterfill, John
Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)


Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)
Keetch, Paul



Key, Robert


Cash, William
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
Kirkbride, Miss Julie



Kirkwood, Archy


Chope, Christopher
Laing, Mrs Eleanor



Clappison, James
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)
Lansley, Andrew


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Leigh, Edward



Letwin, Oliver


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)


Collins, Tim
Lidington, David


Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Livsey, Richard


Cran, James
Lioyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Curry, Rt Hon David
Llwyd, Elfyn


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
Loughton, Tim


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
Luff, Peter


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Duncan, Alan
McCartney, Robert (N Down)


Duncan Smith, Iain
McCrea, Dr William


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
McIntosh, Miss Anne


Evans, Nigel
MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew


Faber, David
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Fabricant, Michael
Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert


Fallon, Michael
McLoughlin, Patrick


Fisher, Mark
Malins, Humfrey


Flight, Howard
Maples, John


Foster, Don (Bath)
Mates, Michael


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Maude, Rt Hon Francis


Fox, Dr Liam
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian


Fraser, Christopher
May, Mrs Theresa


Garnier, Edward
Mitchell, Austin


George, Andrew (St Ives)
Moore, Michael


Gibb, Nick
Moss, Malcolm


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Nicholls, Patrick





Norman, Archie
Straw, Rt Hon Jack


Oaten, Mark
Streeter, Gary


O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)
Swayne, Desmond


Öpik, Lembit
Syms, Robert


Ottaway, Richard
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Page, Richard
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Paice, James
Temple-Morris, Peter


Paterson, Owen
Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)


Pickles, Eric
Townend, John


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Tredinnick, David


Prior, David
Trend, Michael


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Trimble, Rt Hon David


Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)
Tyler, Paul


Robathan, Andrew
Tyrie, Andrew


Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)
Viggers, Peter


Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff
Walter, Robert


Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)
Wardle, Charles



Ruffley, David
Wells, Bowen


St Aubyn, Nick
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Sayeed, Jonathan
Whittingdale, John


Sheenman, Barry
Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd


Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillan
Wilkinson, John


Shepherd, Richard
Willetts, David


Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)
Wilshire, David


Smith, Sir Robert (WAb'd'ns)
Wright, Tony (Cannock)


Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)
Yeo, Tim


Soames, Nicholas
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Spelman, Mrs Caroline



Spicer, Sir Michael
Tellers for the Ayes:


Spring, Richard
Mr. Christopher Gill and


Steen, Anthony
Mrs. Llin Golding.


NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Brand, Dr Peter


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Brinton, Mrs Helen


Ainger, Nick
Browne, Desmond


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Buck, Ms Karen


Alexander, Douglas
Burden, Richard


Allan, Richard
Burgon, Colin


Allen, Graham
Burstow, Paul


Amess, David
Butler, Mrs Christine


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Byers, Rt Hon Stephen


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Cable, Dr Vincent


Ashton, Joe
Caborn, Rt Hon Richard


Atherton, Ms Candy
Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)


Atkins, Charlotte
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)


Austin, John
Campbell-Savours, Dale


Bailey, Adrian
Cann, Jamie


Baker, Norman
Caplin, Ivor


Ballard, Jackie
Casale, Roger


Banks, Tony
Caton, Martin


Barnes, Harry
Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)


Barron, Kevin
Chaytor, David


Bayley, Hugh
Clapham, Michael


Beard, Nigel
Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)


Begg, Miss Anne



Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)
Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)


Bennett, Andrew F
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)



Benton, Joe
Clelland, David


Bermingham, Gerald
Clwyd, Ann


Berry, Roger
Coaker, Vernon


Best, Harold
Coffey, Ms Ann


Betts, Clive
Cohen, Harry


Blackman, Liz
Coleman, Iain


Blears, Ms Hazel
Colman, Tony


Blizzard, Bob
Cooper, Yvette


Boateng, Rt Hon Paul
Corbett, Robin


Borrow, David
Corbyn, Jeremy


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Corston, Jean


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Cotter, Brian


Bradshaw, Ben
Cousins, Jim


Brake, Tom
Cox, Tom






Cranston, Ross
Hodge, Ms Margaret


Crausby, David
Hood, Jimmy


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Cummings, John
Hope, Phil


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Hopkins, Kelvin


Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire
Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)


Darling, Rt Hon Alistair
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Darvill, Keith
Howells, Dr Kim


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Hoyle, Lindsay


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)


Davidson, Ian
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Humble, Mrs Joan


Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Hurst, Alan


Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)
Hutton, John


Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)
Iddon, Dr Brian



Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)


Dawson, Hilton
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Day, Stephen
Jamieson, David


Dean, Mrs Janet
Jenkins, Brian


Denham, John
Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)


Dismore, Andrew



Dobbin, Jim
Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)


Dobson, Rt Hon Frank
Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)


Donohoe, Brian H
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Doran, Frank
Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)


Dowd, Jim



Drew, David
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Drown, Ms Julia
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)


Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Edwards, Huw
Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa


Efford, Clive
Joyce, Eric


Ellman, Mrs Louise
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Etherington, Bill
Keeble, Ms Sally


Fearn, Ronnie
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)


Field, Rt Hon Frank
Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)


Fitzpatrick, Jim
Kelly, Ms Ruth


Flint, Caroline
Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness W)


Flynn, Paul



Follett, Barbara
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Khabra, Piara S


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Kidney, David


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
Kilfoyle, Peter


Foulkes, George
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)


Fyfe, Maria
King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)


Gale, Roger
Kingham, Ms Tess


Galloway, George
Kumar, Dr Ashok


Gapes, Mike
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Gardiner, Barry
Lammy, David


George, Andrew (St Ives)
Lawrence, Mrs Jackie


Gerrard, Neil
Laxton, Bob


Gibson, Dr Ian
Lepper, David


Gidley, Sandra
Leslie, Christopher


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
Levitt, Tom


Godsiff, Roger
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)


Goggins, Paul
Lewis, Terry (Worsley)


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
Linton, Martin


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)


Grocott, Bruce
Lock, David


Grogan, John
Love, Andrew


Gunnell, John
McAvoy, Thomas


Hain, Peter
McCabe, Steve


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
McCafferty, Ms Chris


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)


Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)



Hancock, Mike
McDonagh, Siobhain


Hanson, David
Macdonald, Calum


Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet
McDonnell, John


Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)
McFall, John


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
McGuire, Mrs Anne


Hendrick, Mark
McIsaac, Shona


Hepburn, Stephen
Mackinlay, Andrew


Heppell, John
McNamara, Kevin


Hesford, Stephen
McNulty, Tony


Hinchliffe, David
MacShane, Denis





Mactaggart, Fiona
Sanders, Adrian


McWalter, Tony
Sarwar, Mohammad


McWilliam, John
Sawford, Phil


Mallaber, Judy
Sedgemore, Brian


Marek, Dr John
Shaw, Jonathan


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Shipley, Ms Debra


Marshall-Andrews, Robert
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


Martlew, Eric
Singh, Marsha


Maxton, John
Skinner, Dennis


Meale, Alan
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


Merron, Gillian
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


Michael, Rt Hon Alun
Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)


Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)


Milburn, Rt Hon Alan




Miller, Andrew
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


Moffatt, Laura
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Moran, Ms Margaret
Snape, Peter


Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Soley, Clive


Morley, Elliot
Southworth, Ms Helen


Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Spellar, John



Squire, Ms Rachel


Mountford, Kali
Steinberg, Gerry


Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie
Stevenson, George


Mudie, George
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Mullin, Chris
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Stinchcombe, Paul


Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)
Stoate, Dr Howard


Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)
Stringer, Graham


Naysmith, Dr Doug
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Norris, Dan
Stunell, Andrew


O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Olner, Bill
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


O'Neill, Martin



Organ, Mrs Diana
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Osborne, Ms Sandra
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Palmer, Dr Nick
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Pearson, Ian
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Perham, Ms Linda
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Pickthall, Colin
Thompson, William


Pike, Peter L
Timms, Stephen


Plaskitt, James
Tipping, Paddy


Pollard, Kerry
Todd, Mark


Pond, Chris
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Pope, Greg
Touhig, Don


Pound, Stephen
Truswell, Paul


Powell, Sir Raymond
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Prescott, Rt Hon John
Turner, Neil (Wigan)


Primarolo, Dawn
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Prosser, Gwyn
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Purchase, Ken
Tynan, Bill


Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce
Vaz, Keith


Quinn, Lawrie
Vis, Dr Rudi


Radice, Rt Hon Giles
Walley, Ms Joan


Rammell, Bill
Ward, Ms Claire


Randall, John
Wareing, Robert N


Rapson, Syd
Watts, David


Raynsford, Nick
Webb, Steve


Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)
White, Brian


Rendel, David
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)
Wicks, Malcolm



Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Roche, Mrs Barbara



Rogers, Allan
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Roy, Frank
Willis, Phil



Ruane, Chris
Wills, Michael


Ruddock, Joan
Winnick, David


Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Wood, Mike


Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
Woodward, Shaun


Ryan, Ms Joan
Woolas, Phil


Salter, Martin
Worthington, Tony






Wray, James
Tellers for the Noes:


Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)
Mr. Ian Cawsey and


Wyatt, Derek
Mr. Michael J. Foster.

Question accordingly negative.

Clause 3

HUNTING WITH DOGS: REGULATION

Motion made, and Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—

The Committee proceeded to a Division.

The chairman: Order. I ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the delay in No Lobby.
The Committee having divided: Ayes 387, Noes 174.

Division No. 62]
[10.27 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Butler, Mrs Christine


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Byers, Rt Hon Stephen


Ainger, Nick
Cable, Dr Vincent


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Caborn, Rt Hon Richard


Alexander, Douglas
Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)


Allan, Richard
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)


Allen, Graham
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)


Amess, David
Campbell-Savours, Dale


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Cann, Jamie


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Caplin, Ivor


Ashton, Joe
Casale, Roger


Atherton, Ms Candy
Caton, Martin


Atkins, Charlotte
Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Chaytor, David


Austin, John
Clapham, Michael


Bailey, Adrian
Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)


Baker, Norman
Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)


Ballard, Jackie




Banks, Tony
Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)


Barnes, Harry
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)


Barron, Kevin
Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)


Bayley, Hugh
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)


Beard, Nigel
Clelland, David


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Clwyd, Ann


Begg, Miss Anne
Coaker, Vernon


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Coffey, Ms Ann


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Cohen, Harry


Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)
Coleman, Iain


Bennett, Andrew F
Colman, Tony


Benton, Joe
Cooper, Yvette


Bermingham, Gerald
Corbett, Robin


Berry, Roger
Corbyn, Jeremy


Best, Harold
Corston, Jean


Betts, Clive
Cotter, Brian


Blackman, Liz
Cousins, Jim


Blears, Ms Hazel
Cox, Tom


Blizzard, Bob
Cranston, Ross


Blunkett, Rt Hon David
Crausby, David


Boateng, Rt Hon Paul
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)


Borrow, David
Cummings, John


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire


Bradshaw, Ben
Darling, Rt Hon Alistair


Brake, Tom
Darvill, Keith


Brand, Dr Peter
Davey, Edward (Kingston)


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Davidson, Ian


Browne, Desmond
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Buck, Ms Karen
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)


Burden, Richard
Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)


Burgon, Colin
Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)


Burstow, Paul






Dawson, Hilton
Iddon, Dr Brian


Day, Stephen
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)


Dean, Mrs Janet
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Denham, John
Jamieson, David


Dismore, Andrew
Jenkins, Brian


Dobbin, Jim
Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)


Dobson, Rt Hon Frank



Donohoe, Brian H
Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)


Doran, Frank
Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)


Dowd, Jim
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Drew, David
Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)


Drown, Ms Julia



Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Edwards, Huw
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)


Efford, Clive
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Ellman, Mrs Louise
Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa


Etherington, Bill
Joyce, Eric


Feam, Ronnie
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Field, Rt Hon Frank
Keeble, Ms Sally


Fitzpatrick, Jim
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)


Flint, Caroline
Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)


Flynn, Paul
Kelly, Ms Ruth


Follett, Barbara
Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness W)


Foster, Rt Hon Derek



Foster, Don (Bath)
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
Khabra, Piara S


Foulkes, George
Kidney, David


Fyfe, Maria
Kilfoyle, Peter


Gale, Roger
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)


Galloway, George
King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)


Gapes, Mike
Kingham, Ms Tess


Gardiner, Barry
Kumar, Dr Ashok


George, Andrew (St Ives)
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Gerrard, Neil
Lammy, David


Gibson, Dr Ian
Lawrence, Mrs Jackie


Gidley, Sandra
Laxton, Bob


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
Lepper, David


Godsiff, Roger
Leslie, Christopher


Goggins, Paul
Levitt, Tom


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
Lewis, Terry (Worsley)


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen


Grocott, Bruce
Linton, Martin


Grogan, John
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)


Gunnell, John
Lock, David


Hain, Peter
Love, Andrew


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
McAvoy, Thomas


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
McCabe, Steve


Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
McCafferty, Ms Chris


Hancock, Mike
McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)


Hanson, David



Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet
McDonagh, Siobhain


Healey, John
Macdonald, Calum


Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)
McDonnell, John


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
McFall, John


Hendrick, Mark
McGuire, Mrs Anne


Hepburn, Stephen
McIsaac, Shona


Heppell, John
Mackinlay, Andrew


Hesford, Stephen
McNamara, Kevin


Hinchliffe, David
McNulty, Tony


Hodge, Ms Margaret
MacShane, Denis


Hood, Jimmy
Mactaggart, Fiona


Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
McWalter, Tony


Hope, Phil
McWilliam, John


Hopkins, Kelvin
Mallaber, Judy


Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)
Marek, Dr John


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Howells, Dr Kim
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Hoyle, Lindsay
Marshall-Andrews, Robert


Hughes, Ms Bevertey (Stretford)
Martlew, Eric


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Maxton, John


Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)
Meacher, Rt Hon Michael


Humble, Mrs Joan
Meale, Alan


Hurst, Alan
Merron, Gillian


Hutton, John
Michael, Rt Hon Alun






Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


Milburn, Rt Hon Alan
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


Miller, Andrew
Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)


Moffatt, Laura
Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)


Moonie, Dr Lewis



Moran, Ms Margaret
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


Morley, Elliot
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Snape, Peter



Soley, Clive


Mountford, Kali
Southworth, Ms Helen


Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie
Spellar, John


Mudie, George
Squire, Ms Rachel


Mullin, Chris
Steinberg, Gerry


Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Stevenson, George


Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Naysmith, Dr Doug
Stincht[...]ombe, Paul


Norris, Dan
Stoate, Dr Howard


O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Stringer, Graham


Olner, Bill
Stuart, Ms Gisela


O'Neill, Martin
Stunell, Andrew


Organ, Mrs Diana
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Osborne, Ms Sandra
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Palmer, Dr Nick



Pearson, Ian
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Perham, Ms Linda
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Pickthall, Colin
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Pike, Peter L
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Plaskitt, James
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Pollard, Kerry
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Pond, Chris
Timms, Stephen


Pope, Greg
Tipping, Paddy


Pound, Stephen
Todd, Mark


Powell, Sir Raymond
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Touhig, Don


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Truswell, Paul


Prescott, Rt Hon John
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Primarolo, Dawn
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Prosser, Gwyn
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Purchase, Ken
Turner, Neil (Wigan)


Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Quinn, Lawrie
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Radice, Rt Hon Giles
Tynan, Bill


Rammell, Bill
Vaz, Keith


Randall, John
Vis, Dr Rudi


Rapson, Syd
Walley, Ms Joan


Raynsford, Nick
Ward, Ms Claire


Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)
Wareing, Robert N


Rendel, David
Watts, David


Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)
Webb, Steve



White, Brian


Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Roche, Mrs Barbara
Wicks, Malcolm


Rogers, Allan
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Roy, Frank



Ruane, Chris
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Ruddock, Joan
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Willis, Phil


Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
Wills, Michael


Ryan, Ms Joan
Winnick, David


Salter, Martin
Wood, Mike


Sanders, Adrian
Woodward, Shaun


Sarwar, Mohammad
Woolas, Phil


Sawford, Phil
Worthington, Tony


Sedgemore, Brian
Wray, James


Shaw, Jonathan
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Wyatt, Derek


Shipley, Ms Debra



Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Singh, Marsha
Mr. Ian Cawsey and


Skinner, Dennis
Mr. Michael J. Foster.





NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Hoey, Kate


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Horam, John


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)


Baldry, Tony
Hunter, Andrew


Beggs, Roy
Jack, Rt Hon Michael


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Jenkin, Bernard


Bercow, John
Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Beresford, Sir Paul



Blunt, Crispin
Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)


Body, Sir Richard
Keetch, Paul


Boswell, Tim
Key, Robert


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Kirkbride, Miss Julie


Brady, Graham
Kirkwood, Archy


Brazier, Julian
Laing, Mrs Eleanor


Breed, Colin
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Lansley, Andrew


Browning, Mrs Angela
Leigh, Edward


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Letwin, Oliver


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)


Burnett, John
Lidington, David


Burns, Simon
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Butterfill, John
Livsey, Richard


Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)



Llwyd, Elfyn


Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
Loughton, Tim



Luff, Peter


Chope, Christopher
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Clappison, James
McCartney, Robert (N Down)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)
McCrea, Dr William


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
MacGregor, Rt Hon John



McIntosh, Miss Anne


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew


Collins, Tim
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert


Cran, James
McLoughlin, Patrick


Curry, Rt Hon David
Malins, Humfrey


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
Maples, John


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
Mates, Michael


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Maude, Rt Hon Francis


Duncan, Alan
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian


Duncan Smith, Iain
May, Mrs Theresa


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Moore, Michael


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Moss, Malcolm


Evans, Nigel
Nicholls, Patrick


Faber, David
Norman, Archie


Fabricant, Michael
Oaten, Mark


Fallon, Michael
O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)


Flight, Howard
Öpik, Lembit


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Ottaway, Richard


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Page, Richard


Fox, Dr Liam
Paice, James


Fraser, Christopher
Paterson, Owen


Garnier, Edward
Pickles, Eric


Gibb, Nick
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Prior, David


Golding, Mrs Llin
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)


Gray, James
Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff


Green, Damian
Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)


Greenway, John
Ruffley, David


Grieve, Dominic
St Aubyn, Nick


Gummer, Rt Hon John
Sayeed, Jonathan


Hague, Rt Hon William
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Shepherd, Richard


Hammond, Philip
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Harris, Dr Evan
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Harvey, Nick
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Hawkins, Nick
Soames, Nicholas


Hayes, John
Spelman, Mrs Caroline


Heald, Oliver
Spicer, Sir Michael


Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
Spring, Richard







Steen, Anthony
Viggers, Peter


Straw, Rt Hon Jack
Walter, Robert


Streeter, Gary
Wardle, Charles


Swayne, Desmond
Wells, Bowen


Syms, Robert
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Tapsell, Sir Peter
Whittingdale, John


Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)
Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd


Temple-Morris, Peter
Wilkinson, John


Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)
Willetts, David


Thompson, William
Wilshire, David


Townend, John
Yeo, Tim


Tredinnick, David
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Trend, Michael



Trimble, Rt Hon David
Tellers for the Noes:


Tyler, Paul
Mr. Andrew Robathan and


Tyrie, Andrew
Mr. Christopher Gill.

Question accordingly agreed to.
Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4

COMMENCEMENT

Motion made, and Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 37, Noes 374.

Division No. 63]
[10.45 pm


AYES


Beggs, Roy
Livsey, Richard


Berth, Rt Hon A J
Llwyd, Elfyn


Blunt, Crispin
McCrea, Dr William


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
McIntosh, Miss Anne


Burnett, John
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian


Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NEFife)
Nicholls, Patrick



O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)


Chope, Christopher
Paterson, Owen


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Prior, David



Redwood, Rt Hon John


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)



Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
St Aubyn, Nick


Fabricant, Micheal
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)



Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Garnier, Edward
Swayne, Desmond


Harvey, Nick
Temple-Morris, Peter


Hayes, John
Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd


Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)



Kirkwood, Archy
Tellers for the Ayes:


Leigh, Edward
Mr. Eric Forth and


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Mr. Douglas Hogg.


NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Bayley, Hugh


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Beard, Nigel


Ainger, Nick
Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret


Alexander, Douglas
Begg, Miss Anne


Allan, Richard
Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)


Allen, Graham
Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Bennett, Andrew F


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Benton, Joe


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Bermingham, Gerald


Ashton, Joe
Berry, Roger


Atherton, Ms Candy
Best, Harold


Atkins, Charlotte
Betts, Clive



Austin, John
Blackman, Liz


Bailey, Adrian
Blears, Ms Hazel


Baker, Norman
Blizzard, Bob


Ballard, Jackie
Boateng, Rt Hon Paul



Banks, Tony
Borrow, David


Barnes, Harry
Bradley, Keith (Withington)


Barron, Kevin
Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)





Bradshaw, Ben
Edwards, Huw


Brake, Tom
Efford, Clive


Brand, Dr Peter
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Etherington, Bill


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Fearn, Ronnie


Browne, Desmond
Field, Rt Hon Frank


Buck, Ms Karen
Fitzpatrick, Jim


Burden, Richard
Flint, Caroline


Burgon, Colin
Flynn, Paul


Burstow, Paul
Follett, Barbara


Butler, Mrs Christine
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Byers, Rt Hon Stephen
Foster, Don (Bath)


Cable, Dr Vincent
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)


Caborn, Rt Hon Richard
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Foulkes, George


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Galloway, George


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Gapes, Mike


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Gardiner, Barry


Cann, Jamie
George, Andrew (St Ives)


Caplin, Ivor
Gerrard, Neil


Casale, Roger
Gibson, Dr Ian


Caton, Martin
Gidley, Sandra


Cawsey, Ian
Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Goggins, Paul


Chaytor, David
Gordon, Mrs Eileen


Clapham, Michael
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)
Grocott, Bruce



Grogan, John


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Gunnell, John


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Hain, Peter


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)


Clelland, David
Hancock, Mike


Clwyd, Ann
Hanson, David


Coaker, Vernon
Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet


Coffey, Ms Ann
Healey, John


Cohen, Harry
Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)


Coleman, Iain
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)


Colman, Tony
Hendrick, Mark


Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)
Hepburn, Stephen


Cooper, Yvette
Heppell, John


Corbett, Robin
Hesford, Stephen


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hinchliffe, David


Corston, Jean
Hodge, Ms Margaret



Cotter, Brian
Hood, Jimmy


Cousins, Jim
Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Cox, Tom
Hope, Phil


Cranston, Ross
Hopkins, Kelvin


Crausby, David
Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Cummings, John
Howells, Dr Kim


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Hoyle, Lindsay


Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)


Darling, Rt Hon Alistair
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Darvill, Keith
Hughes, Simon (Southward N)


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Humble, Mrs Joan


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Hurst, Alan


Davidson, Ian
Hutton, John


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Iddon, Dr Brian


Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)


Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)



Jamieson, David


Dawson, Hilton
Jenkins, Brian


Dean, Mrs Janet
Johnson, Miss Melanie


Denham, John
(Welwyn Hatfield)


Dismore, Andrew
Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)


Dobbin, Jim
Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)


Dobson, Rt Hon Frank
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Donohoe, Brian H
Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)


Doran, Frank



Dowd, Jim
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Drew, David
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Drown, Ms Julia
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)


Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa






Joyce, Eric
O'Neill Martin


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Organ, Mrs Diana


Keeble, Ms Sally
Osborne, Ms Sandra


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Palmer, Dr Nick



Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)
Pearson, Ian


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Perham, Ms Linda


Khabra, Piara S
Pickthall, Colin


Kidney, David
Pike, Peter L


Kilfoyle, Peter
Plaskitt, James


King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilwonh)
Pollard, Kerry


King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)
Pond, Chris


Kingham, Ms Tess
Pope, Greg


Kumar, Dr Ashok
Pound, Stephen


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Powell, Sir Raymond


Lammy, David
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Lawrence, Mrs Jackie
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Laxton, Bob
Prescott, Rt Hon John


Lepper, David
Primarolo, Dawn


Leslie, Christopher
Prosser, Gwyn


Levitt, Tom
Purchase, Ken


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Quin, Ft Hon Ms Joyce


Lewis, Terry (Worsley)
Quinn, Lawrie


Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen
Radice, Rt Hon Giles


Linton, Martin
Rapson, Syd


Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Raynsford, Nick


Lock, David
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)


Love, Andrew
Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)


McAvoy, Thomas
Rendel, David


McCabe, Steve
Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)


McCafferty, Ms Chris



McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)
Roche, Mrs Barbara



Rogers, Allan


McDonagh, Siobhain
Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff


Macdonald, Calum
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


McDonnell, John
Roy, Frank


McFall, John
Ruane, Chris


McGuire, Mrs Anne
Ruddock, Joan


McIsaac, Shona
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Mackinlay, Andrew
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)


McNamara, Kevin
Ryan, Ms Joan


McNulty, Tony
Salter, Martin


Mactaggart, Fiona
Sanders, Adrian


McWalter, Tony
Sarwar, Mohammad


McWilliam, John
Sawford, Phil


Mallaber, Judy
Sedgemore, Brian


Marek, Dr John
Shaw, Jonathan


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Shipley, Ms Debra


Marshall-Andrews, Robert
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


Martlew, Eric
Singh, Marsha


Maxton, John
Skinner, Dennis


Meacher, Rt Hon Michael
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


Meale, Alan
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


Merron, Gillian
Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)


Michael, Rt Hon Alun
Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)


Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)



Milburn, Rt Hon Alan
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


Miller, Andrew
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


Moffatt, Laura
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Snape, Peter


Moran, Ms Margaret
Soley, Clive


Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Southworth, Ms Helen


Moriey, Elliot
Spellar, John


Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Squire, Ms Rachel



Steinberg, Gerry


Mountford, Kali
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Mudie, George
Stinchcombe, Paul


Mullin, Chris
Stoate, Dr Howard


Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Straw, Rt Hon Jack


Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)
Stringer, Graham


Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Naysmith, Dr Doug
Stunell, Andrew


Norris, Dan
Sutcliffe, Gerry


O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Olner, Bill






Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)
Watts, David


Taylor, David (NW Leics)
Webb, Steve


Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
White, Brian


Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Thompson, William
Wicks, Malcolm


Timms, Stephen
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Tipping, Paddy



Todd, Mark
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Tonge, Dr Jenny
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Touhig, Don
Willis, Phil


Truswell, Paul
Wills, Michael


Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)
Winnick, David


Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)
Wood, Mike



Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)
Woodward, Shaun


Turner, Neil (Wigan)
Woolas, Phil


Twigg, Derek (Halton)
Worthington, Tony


Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)
Wray, James


Tyler, Paul
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Tynan, Bill
Wright, Tony (Cannock)


Vis, Dr Rudi



Walley, Ms Joan
Tellers for the Noes:


Ward, Ms Claire
Mr. Mike Hall and


Wareing, Robert N
Mr. Robert Ainsworth.

Question accordingly negatived.

The Chairman: In the light of the decision on clauses 1 to 3,1 invite the Minister to move the appropriate new clause formally.

New Clause 3

COMMENCEMENT (NO. 4)

'. Schedule 3 shall come into force at the end of the period of one year beginning with the date on which this Act is passed.'.— [Mr. Mike O'Brien.]
Brought up, read the First and Second time.
Amendment proposed to the proposed new clause: (a), in line 1, after "force" insert—
'(a) as respects England'.—[Mr. Simon Thomas.]
Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 68, Noes 346.

Division No. 64]
[10.57 pm


AYES


Allan, Richard
Forth, Rt Hon Eric


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Foster, Don (Bath)


Ashton, Joe
Fraser, Christopher


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
George, Andrew (St Ives)


Baker, Norman
Gidley, Sandra


Ballard, Jackie
Harvey, Nick


Beggs, Roy
Hayes, John


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas


Blunt, Crispin
Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)



Brake, Tom
Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)


Brand, Dr Peter
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Breed, Colin
Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)



Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Burnett, John
Keetch, Paul


Burstow, Paul
Kirkwood, Archy


Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)
Leigh, Edward



Livsey, Richard


Chope, Christopher
McCrea, Dr William


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
McIntosh, Miss Anne



Nicholls, Patrick


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)


Cotter, Brian
Öpik, Lembit


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Paterson, Owen


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
Prior, David


Fallon, Michael
Rendel, David






Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)
Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)


Ruffley, David
Thompson, William


Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Tonge, Dr Jenny


St Aubyn, Nick
Tyler, Paul


Sanders, Adrian
Webb, Steve


Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)
Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd


Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)
Willis, Phil


Stunell, Andrew



Swayne, Desmond
Tellers for the Ayes:


Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Mr. Elfyn Llwyd and


Tempte-Morris, Peter
Mr. Andrew Welsh.


NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Clwyd, Ann


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Coaker, Vernon


Ainger, Nick
Coffey, Ms Ann


Alexander, Douglas
Cohen, Harry


Allen, Graham
Coleman, Iain


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Colman, Tony


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)


Atherton, Ms Candy
Corbyn, Jeremy


Atkins, Charlotte
Corston, Jean


Austin, John
Cousins, Jim


Bailey, Adrian
Cox, Tom


Banks, Tony
Cranston, Ross


Barnes, Harry
Crausby, David


Barron, Kevin
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)


Bayley, Hugh
Cummings, John


Beard, Nigel
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire


Begg, Miss Anne
Darling, Rt Hon Alistair


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Darvill, Keith


Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Bennett, Andrew F
Davidson, Ian


Berrton, Joe
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Bermingham, Gerald
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)


Berry, Roger
Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)


Best, Harold



Betts, Clive
Dawson, Hilton


Blackman, Liz
Dean, Mrs Janet


Blears, Ms Hazel
Denham, John


Blizzard, Bob
Dismore, Andrew


Boateng, Rt Hon Paul
Dobbin, Jim


Borrow, David
Dobson, Rt Hon Frank


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Donohoe, Brian H


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Doran, Frank


Bradshaw, Ben
Dowd, Jim


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Drew, David


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Drown, Ms Julia


Browne, Desmond
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Buck, Ms Karen
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)


Burden, Richard
Edwards, Huw


Burgon, Colin
Efford, Clive


Butler, Mrs Christine
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Byers, Rt Hon Stephen
Etherington, Bill


Caborn, Rt Hon Richard
Evans, Nigel


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Fabricant, Michael


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Fearn, Ronnie


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Field, Rt Hon Frank


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Filzpatrick, Jim


Cann, Jamie
Flint, Caroline


Caplin, Ivor
Flynn, Paul


Casale, Roger
Follett, Barbara


Caton, Martin
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Cawsey, Ian
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)


Chaytor, David
Foulkes, George


Clapham, Michael
Galloway, George


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Gapes, Mike


Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)
Gardiner, Barry



Gerrard, Neil


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Gibson, Dr Ian


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Goggins, Paul


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Gordon, Mrs Eileen


Clelland, David
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)





Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
McCabe, Steve


Grocott, Bruce
McCafferty, Ms Chris


Grogan, John
McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)


Gunnell, John



Hain, Peter
McDonagh, Stobhain


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
Macdonald, Calum


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
McDonnell, John


Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
McFall, John


Hancock, Mike
McIsaac, Shona


Hanson, David
Mackinlay, Andrew


Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet
McNamara, Kevin


Healey, John
McNulty, Tony


Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)
MacShane, Denis


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Mactaggart, Fiona


Hendrick, Mark
McWalter, Tony


Hepburn, Stephen
McWilliam, John


Heppell, John
Mallaber, Judy


Hesford, Stephen
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Hinchliffe, David
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Hodge, Ms Margaret
Marshall-Andrews, Robert


Hood, Jimmy
Martlew, Eric


Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Maxton, John


Hope, Phil
Meacher, Rt Hon Michael


Hopkins, Kelvin
Meale, Alan


Howarlh, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)
Merron, Gillian


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Michael, Rt Hon Alun


Howells, Dr Kim
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Hoyle, Lindsay
Milburn, Rt Hon Alan


Hughes, Ms Beverley (Streiford)
Miller, Andrew


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Moffatt, Laura


Humble, Mrs Joan
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Hurst, Alan
Moran, Ms Margaret


Hutton, John
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Iddon, Dr Brian
Morley, Elliot


Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)



Jamieson, David



Jenkins, Brian
Mountford, Kali


Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)
Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie



Mudie, George


Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)
Mullin, Chris


Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)


Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)
Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Norris, Dan


Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Joyce, Eric
Olner, Bill


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
O'Neill, Martin


Keeble, Ms Sally
Organ, Mrs Diana


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Osborne, Ms Sandra



Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isliworth)
Palmer, Dr Nick


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Pearson, Ian


Khabra, Piara S
Perham, Ms Linda


Kidney, David
Pickthall, Colin


Kilfoyle, Peter
Pike, Peter L


King, Andy (Rugby & Keniworth)
Plaskitt, James


King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)
Pollard, Kerry


Kingham, Ms Tess
Pond, Chris


Kumar, Dr Ashok
Pope, Greg


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Pound, Stephen


Lammy, David
Powell, Sir Raymond


Lawrence, Mrs Jackie
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Laxton, Bob
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Lepper, David
Prescott, Rt Hon John


Leslie, Christopher
Primarolo, Dawn


Levitt, Tom
Prosser, Gwyn


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Purchase, Ken


Lewis, Terry (Worsley)
Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce


Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen
Quinn, Lawrie


Linton, Martin
Radice, Rt Hon Giles


Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Rapson, Syd


Lock, David
Raynsford, Nick


Love, Andrew
Reed, Andrew (Loughbonough)


McAvoy, Thomas
Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)






Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Roche, Mrs Barbara
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Rogers, Allan
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Timms, Stephen


Roy, Frank
Tipping, Paddy


Ruane, Chris
Todd, Mark


Ruddock, Joan
Touhig, Don


Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
Truswell, Paul


Ryan, Ms Joan
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Salter, Martin
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Sarwar, Mohammad
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Sawford, Phil
Turner, Neil (Wigan)


Sedgemore, Brian
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Shaw, Jonathan
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Tynan, Bill


Shipley, Ms Debra
Vis, Dr Rudi


Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
Walley, Ms Joan


Singh, Marsha
Ward, Ms Claire


Skinner, Dennis
Wareing, Robert N


Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)
Watts, David


Smith, Angela (Basildon)
White, Brian


Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)
Wicks, Malcolm



Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)



Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)



Smith, John (Glamorgan)
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Snape, Peter
Wills, Mchael


Soley, Clive
Winnick, David


Southworth, Ms Helen
Wood, Mike


Spellar, John
Woodward, Shaun


Squire, Ms Rachel
Woolas, Phil


Steinberg, Gerry
Worthington, Tony


Stewart, David (Inverness E)
Wray, James


Stewart, Ian (Ecdes)
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Stoate, Dr Howard
Wright, Tony (Cannock)


Straw, Rt Hon Jack



Stringer, Graham
Tellers for the Noes:


Stuart, Ms Gisela
Mrs. Anne McGuire and


Suteliffe, Gerry
Mr. Robert Ainsworth.

Question accordingly negatived.
Motion made, and Question put, That the clause be added to the Bill:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 365, Noes 36.

Division No. 65]
[11.11 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Bennett, Andrew F


Ainger, Nick
Benton, Joe


Alexander, Douglas
Bermingham, Gerald


Allan, Richard
Berry, Roger


Allen, Graham
Best, Harold


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Betts, Clive


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Blackman, Liz


Ashton, Joe
Blears, Ms Hazel


Atherton, Ms Candy
Blizzard, Bob


Atkins, Charlotte
Boateng, Rt Hon Paul


Austin, John
Borrow, David


Bailey, Adrian
Bradley, Keith (Withington)


Baker, Norman
Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)


Ballard, Jackie
Bradshaw, Ben


Banks, Tony
Brake, Tom


Barnes, Harry
Brand, Dr Peter


Barron, Kevin
Brinton, Mrs Helen


Bayley, Hugh
Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)


Beard, Nigel
Browne, Desmond


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Buck, Ms Karen


Begg, Miss Anne
Burden, Richard


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Burgon, Colin





Burstow, Paul
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)


Butler, Mrs Christine
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)


Byers, Rt Hon Stephen
Foulkes, George


Caborn, Rt Hon Richard
Galloway, George


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Gapes, Mike


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Gardiner, Barry


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
George, Andrew (St Ives)



Campbell-Savours, Dale
Gerrard, Neil


Cann, Jamie
Gibson, Dr Ian


Caplin, Ivor
Gidley, Sandra


Casale, Roger
Gilroy, Mrs Linda



Caton, Martin
Goggins, Paul


Cawsey, Ian
Gordon, Mrs Eileen


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)


Chaytor, David
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Clapham, Michael
Grocott, Bruce


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Grogan, John


Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)
Gunnell, John



Hain, Peter


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Hancock, Mike


Clelland, David
Hanson, David


Clwyd, Ann
Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet


Coaker, Vernon
Healey, John


Coffey, Ms Ann
Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)


Cohen, Harry
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)


Coleman, Iain
Hendrick, Mark


Colman, Tony
Hepburn, Stephen


Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)
Heppell, John


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hesford, Stephen


Corston, Jean
Hinchliffe, David


Cotter, Brian
Hodge, Ms Margaret


Cousins, Jim
Hood, Jimmy


Cox, Tom
Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Cranston, Ross
Hope, Phil


Crausby, David
Hopkins, Kelvin


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)


Cummings, John
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Howells, Dr Kim


Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire
Hoyle, Lindsay


Darting, Rt Hon Alistair
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)


Darvill, Keith
Hughes, Kevin (DoncasterN)


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Humble, Mrs Joan


Davidson, Ian
Hurst, Alan


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Hutton, John


Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Iddon, Dr Brian


Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)




Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Dawson, Hilton
Jamieson, David


Dean, Mrs Janet
Jenkins, Brian


Denham, John
Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatheld)


Dismore, Andrew



Dobbin, Jim
Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)


Dobson, Rt Hon Frank
Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)


Donohoe, Brian H
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Doran, Frank
Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)


Dowd, Jim



Drew, David
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Drown, Ms Julia
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)


Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Edwards, Huw
Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa


Efford, Clive
Joyce, Eric


Ellman, Mrs Louise
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald



Etherington, Bill
Keeble, Ms Sally


Feam, Ronnie
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)


Field, Rt Hon Frank
Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)


Fitzpatrick, Jim
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)


Flint, Caroline
Khabra, Piara S


Flynn, Paul
Kidney, David


Follett, Barbara
Kilfoyle, Peter


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)


Foster, Don (Bath)
Kingham, Ms Tess






Kumar, Dr Ashok
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Lammy, David
Prescott, Rt Hon John


Lawrence, Mrs Jackie
Primarolo, Dawn


Laxton, Bob
Prosser, Gwyn


Lepper, David
Purchase, Ken


Leslie, Christopher
Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce


Levitt, Tom
Quinn, Lawrie


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Radice, Rt Hon Giles


Lewis, Terry (Worsley)
Rapson, Syd


Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen
Raynsford, Nick


Linton, Martin
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)


Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)


Lock, David
Rendel, David


Love, Andrew
Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)


McAvoy, Thomas



McCabe, Steve
Roche, Mrs Barbara


McCafferty, Ms Chris
Rogers, Allan


McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)
Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff



Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


McDonagh, Siobhain
Roy, Frank


Macdonald, Calum
Ruane, Chris


McDonnell, John
Ruddock, Joan


McFall, John
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


McIsaac, Shona
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)


Mackinlay, Andrew
Ryan, Ms Joan


McNamara, Kevin
Salter, Martin


McNulty, Tony
Sanders, Adrian


Mactaggart, Fiona
Sarwar, Mohammad


McWalter, Tony
Sawford, Phil


McWilliam, John
Sedgemore, Brian


Mallaber, Judy
Shaw, Jonathan


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Shipley, Ms Debra


Marshall-Andrews, Robert
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


Martlew, Eric
Singh, Marsha


Maxton, John
Skinner, Dennis


Meacher, Rt Hon Michael
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


Meale, Alan
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


Merron, Gillian
Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)


Michael, Rt Hon Alun
Smith, Miss Geraldine


Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
(Morecambe & Lunesdale)


Milburn, Rt Hon Alan
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


Miller, Andrew
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


Moffatt, Laura
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Soley, Clive


Moran, Ms Margaret
Southworth, Ms Helen


Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Spellar, John


Moriey, Elliot
Squire, Ms Rachel


Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Steinberg, Gerry



Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Mountford, Kali
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie
Stoate, Dr Howard


Mudie, George
Straw, Rt Hon Jack


Mullin, Chris
Stringer, Graham


Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Stuart, Ms Giseia


Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)
Stunell, Andrew


Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Naysmith, Dr Doug
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Norris, Dan



O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Olner, Bill
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


O'Neill, Martin
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Organ, Mrs Diana
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Osborne, Ms Sandra
Timms, Stephen


Palmer, Dr Nick
Tipping, Paddy


Pearson, Ian
Todd, Mark


Perham, Ms Linda
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Pickthall, Colin
Touhig, Don


Pike, Peter L
Truswell, Paul


Plaskitt, James
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Pollard, Kerry
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Pond, Chris
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Pope, Greg
Turner, Neil (Wigan)


Pound, Stephen
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Powell, Sir Raymond
Twigg, Stephen (Enfiekt)





Tynan, Bill
Willis, Phil


Vis, Dr Rudi
Wills, Michael


Walley, Ms Joan
Winnick, David


Ward, Ms Claire
Wood, Mike


Wareing, Robert N
Woodward, Shaun


Watts, David
Woolas, Phil


Webb, Steve
Worthington, Tony



Wray, James


White, Brian
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Whitehead, Dr Alan
Wright, Tony (Cannock)


Wicks, Malcolm
Wyatt, Derek


Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)




Tellers for the Ayes:


Williams, Alan W (E Carmalthen)
Mrs. Anne McGuire and


Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)
Mr. Robert Ainsworth.


NOES


Beggs, Roy
Leigh, Edward


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Livsey, Richard


Blunt, Crispin
Llwyd, Elfyn


Breed, Colin
McCrea, Dr William


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
McIntosh, Miss Anne


Burnett, John
Nicholls, Patrick


Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)
Paterson, Owen



Prior, David


Chope, Christopher
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)



Swayne, Desmond


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Fabricant, Michael
Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)


Fraser, Christopher
Thompson, William


Harris, Dr Evan
Tyler, Paul


Harvey, Nick
Walter, Robert


Hayes, John
Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)



Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Tellers for the Noes:


Keetch, Paul
Mr. Eric Forth and


Kirkwood, Archy
Mr. Douglas Hogg.

Question accordingly agreed to.
Clause added to the Bill.
Bill (Clauses 1 to 4) reported, with amendment; to lie upon the Table.

SITTINGS IN WESTMINSTER HALL

Motion made,
That, following the Order [20th November 20001, Mr. Nicholas Winterton, Mr. John McWilliam, Mr. Barry Jones and Frank Cook be appointed to act as additional Deputy Speakers at sittings in Westminster Hall during this Session.—[Mr. Touhig.]

Hon. Members: Object.

SELECT COMMITTEES (JOINT MEETINGS)

Motion made,
That, for the current Session of Parliament, Standing Order No. 152 (Select committees related to government departments) be amended as follows:
Line 37, before the word 'European' insert the words 'Environmental Audit Committee or with the'.
Line 46, before the word 'European' insert the words 'Environmental Audit Committee or with the'.
Line 48, at the end insert the words:—
'(4A) notwithstanding paragraphs (2) and (4) above, where more than two committees or sub-committees appointed under this order meet concurrently in accordance with paragraph (4)(e) above, the quorum of each such committee or sub-committee shall be two.'—[Mr. Touhig.]

Hon. Members: Object.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made,
That Private Members' Bills shall have precedence over Government business on 2nd and 9th February, 9th, 16th, 23rd and 30th March, 6th and 27th April, 11th and 18th May, 8th and 15th June and 20th July.—[Mr. Touhig.]

Hon. Members: Object.

ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE

Motion made,
That Mr. Stephen Hepburn be discharged from the Administration Committee and Caroline Flint be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Mc William.]

Hon. Members: Object.

Orders of the Day — Dystonia

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Touhig.]

Mr. Mike Wood: I am delighted at the end of this interesting and important parliamentary day to have the opportunity to raise the important issue of dystonia. For those who do not know, it is a neurological movement disorder, or a series of disorders, that possibly derives from a chemical imbalance in the brain or, more specifically, in that part of the brain, the basal ganglia, that regulates muscle activity.
The imbalance can be hereditary, but in other cases it apparently comes about as the result of an accident or illness. Muscles can begin to develop, as it were, a life of their own, causing uncontrollable twitching, tremors and other abnormal movements. The condition can affect the whole body or—it is just as debilitating and painful—it can be focal dystonia and attack one particular part of the sufferer's body such as the tongue, the mouth, the head, the neck, the arms, the hands or the muscles around the eyes.
Dystonia in children can be particularly cruel. The disease is generally progressive and it can leave a child with an able mind locked in a seriously disabled and contorted body and, sometimes, unable even to speak or communicate properly.
In a recent letter to my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes), Professor Gosling points out that, even though there are 40,000 diagnosed cases of dystonia in this country and many more that are undiagnosed, dystonia does not have quite the high profile associated with its sister diseases, such as Parkinson's disease, multiple sclerosis and motor neurone disease.
There is a national society for dystonia sufferers and their carers and the disease's low profile is something that my local group, the West Yorkshire Dystonia Society, has decided, to its great credit, to do something about. It feels that the disease's lack of profile explains why so few resources in the national health service are given over to the diagnosis and treatment of sufferers and why there is so little research into the causes of this crippling condition and into a cure.
In fact, the position appears to be worse than that. Many sufferers of dystonia who have been in touch with me in recent weeks remained undiagnosed for an average of two to three years. In one memorable case, a patient was undiagnosed for 30 years, which must be some kind of record. I regret to say that, in the period before diagnosis has been confirmed, many patients report very poor treatment at the hands of their GPs and other medical professionals.
I shall illustrate my point by referring to my constituent, Margaret Burke. She and her husband and carer, John, are two of the stalwarts of my local dystonia society. Margaret was originally told by her GP to stop wasting his time. She was a stupid woman, he said, and appeared to need something to worry about now that her children had left home. She persisted, but it took more than two years for her to be referred to a specialist, but then only to a psychiatrist, because the GP was still of the opinion that whatever she suffered was, at worst,


a psychological problem. He thought that she was imagining the feeling that her head was about to twist off her shoulders.
Several years later, Margaret has undergone six operations under the only British surgeon who carries out a procedure to alleviate the effects of what she really was, and is, suffering from—namely, spasmodic torticollis, which is an uncontrollable twisting of the neck muscles. Is it any wonder that, when people who are so afflicted—there are probably more than 100,000 of them in this country—meet with such a response, which adds to the distress caused by their painful condition, they are brought to the depths of despair? One sufferer who spoke to me said that she had had a nervous breakdown, which she attributed to the frustration caused not only by seeing her body deteriorate but by being treated in that fashion.
Another constituent, Elizabeth Price, like Mrs. Burke, agreed willingly that I should relay her details to the House so as to allow those for whom the condition is a new phenomenon fully to understand its dimensions. Miss Price was a midwife for 14 years, a job which she loved and from which she got enormous satisfaction, but she had to retire at 31. She is now wheelchair-bound and describes herself as severely disabled. She can no longer drive; indeed, she is housebound and has to be cared for by her mother, who in turn had to give up her own job so that she could perform that function 24 hours a day, seven days a week.
Miss Price considers herself fortunate that, after many years, she now receives treatment for her severe pain from Dr. Higgins at Kirkwood, our first-rate local hospice. Initially, however, she also had difficulty in having her complaints of feeling unwell taken seriously. She contends that many of the medics whom she saw were ignorant of her condition, under-resourced, with little time and they were unavailable to her during her emergencies or at times of relapse. Appointments were often six months apart with little monitoring of her progress or of her reaction at one stage to new and revolutionary drugs. She has no electric wheelchair, which would aid her independence, and the local social services department has still to agree to the adaptations to her mother's home which would free her from imprisonment on the ground floor.
To state the obvious, people with such distressing, painful conditions deserve better, so without detaining the House too much longer I ask the Minister for the following assurances: first, that all GPs will receive improved training in diagnosing dystonia; secondly, that the improved training will then be extended to other relevant medical staff up to and including neurologists; and thirdly, that her Department will publish the amount given annually by the Government to fund research into movement disorders in sufficient detail for it to be clear how much of that cash will help dystonia sufferers.
Fourthly, will the Minister encourage the Secretary of State to meet Dystonia Society officials, as I asked him to do some time ago, to hear at first hand of their concerns as the poor relatives of the movement disorders family, as they consider themselves? Finally, will the Minister consider being the keynote speaker at the inaugural meeting of the all-party dystonia group, which I intend to establish?

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Ms Gisela Stuart): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Spen (Mr. Wood) on selecting this subject for debate. As he said, this has in many ways been a memorable parliamentary day.
Good health is what people treasure most. Dystonia may not be a disease that many will be familiar with, but for some it will have had a major impact on their everyday lives. The Dystonia Society estimates that some 38,000 people in the UK suffer from the condition. We need to ensure that the national health service is sensitive to the needs of anyone who suffers from dystonia.
I shall outline the origins and treatment of dystonia, which are relevant to the specific questions that my hon. Friend asked. I shall then say more about the research into its causes which we are undertaking, and how our modernisation of the NHS will help all patients, including those with this debilitating disease.
My hon. Friend has graphically outlined the experience of two of his constituents. I shall not cover the same ground other than to say that the effects on the body can be diverse. Although dystonia is not fatal, it is a chronic disorder and prognosis is difficult to predict. Furthermore, it may begin at any time during childhood, adolescence or adulthood.
It is important to note that, to date, no test to confirm diagnosis of dystonia has been developed. Instead, the diagnosis of dystonia rests solely on the information from the affected individual and the physical and neurological examination. Therefore, correctly to diagnose dystonia, doctors must be able to recognise the physical signs and be familiar with the symptoms. I am aware that it is often misdiagnosed—in the case of one of my hon. Friend's constituents, seriously so—and mistaken for Parkinson's disease.
The cause of dystonia is not currently known, although the DYT1 gene is thought to be implicated in some cases and cerebral accidents such as birth injuries and stroke in others. In addition, we know that neuroleptic drugs can produce dystonic symptoms. I understand my hon. Friend's concerns and I appreciate how difficult it is for doctors dealing with cases in which there is no simple test to confirm diagnosis. Let us not forget the patients, who quite rightly want an explanation for the illness they are facing and how it can best be treated. That is why we must strive to take the work forward. I shall talk about current research to improve our knowledge and therefore provide more effective treatment.
Although there is not yet a cure for dystonia, there are a number of treatments that reduce the symptoms and help to restore patients to many daily living activities. Treatment for dystonia is designed to lessen the symptoms of spasms, pain and disturbed posture and function. Most therapies are symptomatic, attempting to cover up or release the dystonic spasms. No single strategy will be appropriate for every case, so even after diagnosis, which as we know is sometimes extremely difficult, any treatment plan needs to be carefully structured to meet the needs of the individual patient. The goal of any treatment is to achieve the greatest benefits while incurring the fewest risks and side-effects.
The approach to treatment of dystonia is usually three-tiered, involving oral medications, botulinum toxin injections in small, safe doses and, in some cases, surgery.
Those therapies may be used alone or in combination and interventions may be made to maintain mobility. The introduction in the late 1980s of botulinum toxin—a biological product—has made a considerable difference to the lives of people with dystonia. The toxin, which is injected into the muscles, acts as a nerve-blocker and prevents the release of acetylcholine, which is a neurotransmitter that activates muscle spasms. The effects of the treatment generally last for a few months, but then it needs to be repeated.
Surgery is generally considered when patients are no longer receptive to other treatments, which can lose their effect over time. The surgical techniques used are generally intended to interrupt the neural pathways responsible for the abnormal movements of dystonia patients. Recently, in a new development mentioned by my hon. Friend, surgeons have started to use deep brain stimulation—also used in Parkinson's disease—with some success.
Although we are treating dystonia with some success, there are limitations owing to our lack of a full scientific understanding of the disease. I firmly believe that long-term research holds the key to finding a cure for dystonia, so I shall now address that area, in response to the specific questions my hon. Friend raised.
The role of genetic factors in dystonia has been the focus of research over the last decade in a number of countries. In England, the main Government agency for research into the causes of, and treatments for, disease is the Medical Research Council. The MRC receives its funding via the Department of Trade and Industry. In 1999–2000, the MRC provided more than £3 million for research into movement disorders, which include dystonia. My hon. Friend asked for a breakdown of the figures specific to dystonia, but the lack of clarity about the specific origins of the disease and the fact that it has a lot in common with other diseases means that the research package covers the whole group of diseases. The research will improve our understanding of those conditions and aid the development of treatments for dystonia and related movement disorders such as Parkinson's disease, Huntington's disease and multiple sclerosis.
In the five years from 1994 to 1999, the MRC invested more than £8 million into research related to dystonia. I think my hon. Friend will agree that that is a substantial investment and shows that we are serious about trying to establish the causes of, and possible treatments for, dystonia.
I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the report from the chief medical officer's expert group entitled "Stem Cell Research: Medical Progress with Responsibility". It recognises that the early research on stem cells is exciting and provides a real hope of new treatments becoming available in a few years for people with chronic diseases. Many people, including patients and their families who shoulder the burden of these diseases, support the report, recognising the considerable impact that it could have on their health and their lives in the long run.
I hope that, over time, this research will provide a breakthrough in the understanding and treatment of genetic diseases. We must be realistic about this process, however, and make sure that people understand that scientists are not offering us immediate solutions. This research approach is no magic wand. What works on a

mouse in a laboratory may not have the same effect on a human being. It may well be many years before the work bears fruit.
Given these limitations—we are making significant investment into research, but we may not have an immediate answer both to finding the causes and to treatment—it is important to consider how we disseminate information that is available to professionals and to patients. It is an exciting time overall within the NHS. We are looking forward not only to new money, but to modernisation of the way that the NHS provides care. Our objective is for the NHS to be faster, fairer and more convenient. It will be more patient centred with patients having a greater involvement in service delivery. A good example of that is NHS Direct.
NHS Direct is extending care into the home. It is helping people take more responsibility for their own health and empowering them to become more proactive partners in their health care.
NHS Direct operates on a simple principle, which is to give people fast and convenient advice and information that enables them to look after themselves and their families when it is safe for them to do so. However, providing the information and advice that people need to enable them to share the responsibility for their own health does not end with the NHS Direct telephone service. I have ensured that NHS advice, should anyone inquire about dystonia, will refer callers to the relevant bodies.
More importantly, we have found that when people want more information on health, the internet is an extremely powerful tool. According to one recent survey, about 25 per cent, of adults in Britain use the internet in any one month. I recall that the most common topic that people search for on the internet, apart from sex and religion, is health. Clearly it is something that concerns the public.
One of the dangers of the internet is that the wealth of information that it provides is not necessarily reliable. With that in mind, we launched NHS Direct online in December 1999. It is the first comprehensive gateway to health information in the UK. Not only does it provide an electronic health care guide, it includes information about the NHS and how to use its services, facts and advice on health stories in the national media and pages on 200 specific diseases and their treatment.
NHS Direct online acts as a safe gateway to other health information and databases on the web. Information on health is one of the main reasons why people use the internet, but as I have said it is not always reliable.
When my hon. Friend chose dystonia as the subject for the debate, I entered it in the search field of the NHS Direct website and, to my delight, I found much useful information there on dystonia. It was there before my hon. Friend raised the issue. I would have been happy to say that as a result of the debate we are putting the information on the website, but to my surprise it was already there. It included details of support organisations, and evaluated patient information.
Our NHS Direct information points will also include information on dystonia. The information kiosks provide access in public places when people do not have access to the internet in their homes. There will be 153 NHS Direct information points in place this financial year in locations such as libraries, community centres,


pharmacies, supermarkets and walk-in centres. The NHS plan includes the commitment more than 500 NHS Direct information points will be in place by 2004.
I checked whether there was an information point within my hon. Friend's constituency, and found that there is not one yet. The closest ones are at Dewsbury and Wakefield libraries.
NHS Direct is a key strand in our modernisation of the health service. It is a good example of how new technology can be harnessed to deliver real benefits to the public and help to address their need for information and advice about health and health services.
I would have been delighted if, as a result of my hon. Friend initiating the debate and putting the issue on the record, I could give a clear sign of where research may deliver some solutions. Unfortunately, I cannot do that. I can say that we are committed to finding a way and that the financial investment is there. In the meantime, all we can do is work on improving the treatment and raise awareness.
General practitioners in particular may see only one or two cases of dystonia in their professional life, but they may be helped by an interesting development that I have seen in some medical schools where video tapes of patients are used as teaching aids. Technology will help us to raise awareness, as will debates such as this, and an all-party group, to which my hon. Friend referred, will also be valuable.
I thank my hon. Friend for securing the debate and I hope that he will get in touch with the Department so that a meeting can be arranged. Some 38,000 people suffer from dystonia and I hope that, in future, we shall be able to give them a more hopeful message.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at fourteen minutes to Twelve midnight.

Orders of the Day — Deferred Divisions

HUMAN RIGHTS (JOINT COMMITTEE)

That—
the Lords Message [12th July 2000] communicating a Resolution relating to Human Rights (Joint Committee), be now considered;
this House concurs with the Lords in the said Resolution; and
the following Standing Order be made:

(1) There shall be a Select Committee, to consist of six Members, to join with the Committee appointed by the Lords as the Joint Committee on Human Rights.
(2) The Committee shall consider—

(a) matters relating to human rights in the United Kingdom (but excluding consideration of individual cases);
(b) proposals for remedial orders, draft remedial orders and remedial orders made under Section 10 of and laid under Schedule 2 to the Human Rights Act 1998; and
(c) in respect of draft remedial orders and remedial orders, whether the special attention of the House should be drawn to them on any of the grounds specified in Standing Order No. 151 (Statutory Instruments (Joint Committee));

(3) The Committee shall report to the House—

(a) in relation to any document containing proposals laid before the House under paragraph 3 of the said Schedule 2, its recommendation whether a draft order in the same terms as the proposals should be laid before the House; or
(b) in relation to any draft order laid under paragraph 2 of the said Schedule 2, its recommendation whether the draft Order should be approved;

and the Committee may report to the House on any matter arising from its consideration of the said proposals or draft orders.
(4) The Committee shall report to the House in respect of any original order laid under paragraph 4 of the said Schedule 2, its recommendation whether—

(a) the order should be approved in the form in which it was originally laid before Parliament; or
(b) that the order should be replaced by a new order modifying the provisions of the original order; or
(c) that the order should not be approved,

and the Committee may report to the House on any matter arising from its consideration of the said order or any replacement order.
(5) The quorum of the committee shall be three.
(6) Unless the House otherwise orders, each Member nominated to the committee shall continue to be a member of it for the remainder of the Parliament.
(7) The committee shall have power—

(a) to send for persons, papers and records, to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House, to adjourn from place to place within the United Kingdom, to adjourn to institutions of the Council of Europe outside the United Kingdom no more than four times in any calendar year, and to report from time to time; and
(b) to appoint specialist advisers either to supply information which is not readily available or to elucidate matters of complexity within the committee's order of reference.

The House divided: Ayes 486, Noes 3.

Division No. 58]



AYES


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Ancram, Rt Hon Michael


Ainger, Nick
Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Ashton, Joe


Allan, Richard
Atherton, Ms Candy


Allen, Graham
Atkins, Charlotte


Amess, David
Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)






Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Coffey, Ms Ann


Austin, John
Cohen, Harry


Bailey, Adrian
Coleman, Iain


Baker, Norman
Colman, Tony


Baldry, Tony
Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)


Banks, Tony
Cooper, Yvette


Barnes, Harry
Corbett, Robin


Barron, Kevin
Corbyn, Jeremy


Bayley, Hugh
Cormack, Sir Patrick


Beard, Nigel
Cotter, Brian


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Cousins, Jim


Begg, Miss Anne
Cox, Tom


Beggs, Roy
Cran, James


Berth, Rt Hon A J
Cranston, Ross


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Crausby, David


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Cummings, John


Benton, Joe
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Bercow, John
Curry, Rt Hon David


Beresford, Sir Paul

Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire


Bermingham, Gerald
Dalyell, Tarn


Berry, Roger
Darling, Rt Hon Alistair


Betts, Clive
Darvill, Keith


Blackman, Liz
Davey, Edward (Kingston)


Blunkett, Rt Hon David
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Blunt, Crispin
Davidson, Ian


Boateng, Rt Hon Paul
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Borrow, David
Davies, Quentin (Grantham)


Boswell, Tim
Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia



Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Dawson, Hilton


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Day, Stephen


Bradshaw, Ben
Dean, Mrs Janet


Brady, Graham
Denham, John


Brake, Tom
Dismore, Andrew


Brand, Dr Peter
Dobbin, Jim


Brazier, Julian
Dobson, Rt Hon Frank


Breed, Colin
Donohoe, Brian H


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Doran, Frank


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Dowd, Jim


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Drew, David


Browne, Desmond
Drown, Ms Julia


Browning, Mrs Angela
Duncan, Alan


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Duncan Smith, Iain


Buck, Ms Karen
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Burden, Richard
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)



Burnett, John
Edwards, Huw


Burns, Simon
Efford, Clive


Burstow, Paul
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Butterfill, John
Etherington, Bill


Byers, Rt Hon Stephen
Evans, Nigel


Cable, Dr Vincent
Faber, David


Caborn, Rt Hon Richard
Fabricant, Michael


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Fallon, Michael


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Feam, Ronnie


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Field, Rt Hon Frank


Caplin, Ivor
Fisher, Mark


Casale, Roger
Fitzpatrick, Jim


Caton, Martin
Flight, Howard


Cawsey, Ian
Flint, Caroline


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Flynn, Paul



Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
Follett, Barbara



Foster, Don (Bath)


Chaytor, David
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)


Clapham, Michael
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)


Clappison, James
Foulkes, George


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)
Fox, Dr Liam


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Fraser, Christopher


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Fyfe, Maria


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Gale, Roger


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Gapes, Mike


Clelland, David
Gardiner, Barry


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Garnier, Edward


Clwyd, Ann
George, Andrew (St Ives)


Coaker, Vernon
Gerrard, Neil





Gibb, Nick
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Gibson, Dr Ian
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)


Gidley, Sandra
Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)


Gill, Christopher
Keetch, Paul



Gilroy, Mrs Linda
Kelly, Ms Ruth


Godsiff, Roger
Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness W)


Goggins, Paul



Golding, Mrs Llin
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
Key, Robert


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Khabra, Piara S


Gray, James
Kidney, David


Green, Damian
Kilfoyle, Peter


Greenway, John
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)


Grieve, Dominic
King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Kingham, Ms Tess


Grogan, John
Kirkbride, Miss Julie


Hague, Rt Hon William
Kirkwood, Archy


Hain, Peter
Kumar, Dr Ashok


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Laing, Mrs Eleanor


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
Lansley, Andrew


Hammond, Philip
Lawrence, Mrs Jackie


Hancock, Mike
Laxton, Bob


Hanson, David
Lepper, David


Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet
Leslie, Christopher


Harris, Dr Evan
Letwin, Oliver


Hawkins, Nick
Levitt, Tom


Hayes, John
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)


Heald, Oliver
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)


Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Lewis, Terry (Worsley)


Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen


Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)
Lidington, David


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Linton, Martin


Hendrick, Mark
Livsey, Richard


Heppell, John
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Hesford, Stephen
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)


Hinchliffe, David
Llwyd, Elfyn


Hoey, Kate
Lock, David


Hood, Jimmy
Loughton, Tim


Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Love, Andrew


Hope, Phil
Luff, Peter


Hopkins, Kelvin
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Horam, John
McAvoy, Thomas


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
McCabe, Steve


Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)
McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)



Howells, Dr Kim
McDonagh, Siobhain


Hoyle, Lindsay
McDonnell, John


Hughes, Ms Beveriey (Stretford)
McGrady, Eddie


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)
McGuire, Mrs Anne


Humble, Mrs Joan
McIntosh, Miss Anne


Hurst, Alan
McIsaac, Shona


Iddon, Dr Brian
MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew


Ingram, Rt Hon Adam
Mackinlay, Andrew


Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
McLoughlin, Patrick


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
McNulty, Tony


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
MacShane, Denis


Jamieson, David
Mactaggart, Fiona


Jenkin, Bernard
McWalter, Tony


Jenkins, Brian
McWilliam, John


Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)
Malins, Humfrey






Mallaber, Judy


Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)
Maples, John


Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)
Mates, Michael



Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
May, Mrs Theresa


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Meale, Alan


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Merron, Gillian


Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa
Michael, Rt Hon Alun


Joyce, Eric
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)






Milburn, Rt Hon Alan
Sayeed, Jonathan


Miller, Andrew
Sedgemore, Brian


Mitchell, Austin
Shaw, Jonathan


Moore, Michael
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Moran, Ms Margaret
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian


Motley, Elliot
Shepherd, Richard


Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Shipley, Ms Debra



Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


Moss, Malcolm
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Mountford, Kali
Singh, Marsha


Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie
Skinner, Dennis


Mudie, George
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


Mullin, Chris
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)


Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)
Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)


Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)



Naysmith, Dr Doug
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


Norman, Archie
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


Norris, Dan
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Oaten, Mark
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)
Soames, Nicholas


O'Hara, Eddie
Soley, Clive


Olner, Bill
Southworth, Ms Helen


O'Neill, Martin
Spellar, John


Öpik, Lembit
Spelman, Mrs Caroline


Organ, Mrs Diana
Spicer, Sir Michael


Osborne, Ms Sandra
Spring, Richard


Ottaway, Richard
Squire, Ms Rachel


Page, Richard
Steinberg, Gerry


Paice, James
Stevenson, George


Paterson, Owen
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Pearson, Ian
Stinchcombe, Paul


Perham, Ms Linda
Stoate, Dr Howard


Pickles, Eric
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


Pickthall, Colin
Straw, Rt Hon Jack


Pike, Peter L
Streeter, Gary


Plaskitt, James
Stringer, Graham


Pond, Chris
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Pope, Greg
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Swayne, Desmond


Pound, Stephen
Syms, Robert


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Prescott, Rt Hon John
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Primarolo, Dawn



Prior, David
Taylor, David (NWLeics)


Prosser, Gwyn
Taylor, Ian (Esher& Walton)


Purchase, Ken
Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strangford)


Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Quinn, Lawrie
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Randall, John
Temple-Morris, Peter


Rapson, Syd
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Raynsford, Nick
Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Thompson, William


Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)
Timms, Stephen


Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)
Tipping, Paddy


Rendel, David
Todd, Mark


Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)
Tonge, Dr Jenny



Touhig, Don


Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)
Tredinnick, David


Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)
Trend, Michael


Roche, Mrs Barbara
Trimble, Rt Hon David


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Truswell, Paul


Rogers, Allan
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)
Turner, Neil (Wigan)


Ruane, Chris
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Ruddock, Joan
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Ruffley, David
Tynan, Bill


Ryan, Ms Joan
Tyrie, Andrew


Salter, Martin
Vaz, Keith


Sanders, Adrian
Viggers, Peter


Sarwar, Mohammad
Vis, Dr Rudi


Savidge, Malcolm
Walley, Ms Joan


Sawford, Phil
Walter, Robert





Ward, Ms Claire
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Wardle, Charles






Wareing, Robert N
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Waterson, Nigel
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Watts, David
Winnick, David


Welsh, Andrew
Woodward, Shaun


White, Brian
Woolas, Phil


Whitehead, Dr Alan
Worthington, Tony


Whitney, Sir Raymond
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Whittingdale, John
Wright, Tony (Cannock)


Wicks, Malcolm
Wyatt, Derek


Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann
Yeo, Tim


Wilkinson, John
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Willetts, David



NOES


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas
Wells, Bowen


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

Question accordingly agreed to.

HUMAN RIGHTS

That Mr. Desmond Browne, Sir Patrick Cormack, Jean Corston, Mr. Robert Maclennan, Mr. Andrew Miller and Mr. Gareth Thomas (Clwyd West), be members of the Select Committee appointed to join with a Committee of the Lords as the Joint Committee on Human Rights.
The House divided: Ayes 487, Noes 2.

Division No. 59]



AYES


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia


Ainger, Nick
Bradley, Keith (Withington)



Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Bradshaw, Ben


Allan, Richard
Brady, Graham


Allen, Graham
Brake, Tom


Amess, David
Brand, Dr Peter


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Brazier, Julian


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Breed, Colin



Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Brinton, Mrs Helen


Ashton, Joe
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter


Atherton, Ms Candy
Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)


Atkins, Charlotte
Browne, Desmond


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Browning, Mrs Angela


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)


Austin, John

Buck, Ms Karen


Bailey, Adrian
Burden, Richard


Baker, Norman
Burnett, John


Baldry, Tony
Burns, Simon


Banks, Tony
Burstow, Paul


Barnes, Harry
Butterfill, John


Barren, Kevin
Byers, Rt Hon Stephen


Bayley, Hugh
Cable, Dr Vincent


Beard, Nigel
Caborn, Rt Hon Richard


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)


Begg, Miss Anne
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)


Beggs, Roy
Campbell-Savours, Dale


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Caplin, Ivor


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Casale, Roger


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Caton, Martin


Benton, Joe
Cawsey, Ian


Bercow, John
Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)


Beresford, Sir Paul
Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)


Bermingham, Gerald



Berry, Roger
Chaytor, David


Betts, Clive
Clapham, Michael


Blackman, Liz
Clappison, James


Blunkett, Rt Hon David
Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)


Blunt, Crispin
Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)


Boateng, Rt Hon Paul
Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)


Borrow, David
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)


Boswell, Tim
Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)






Clelland, David
Gardiner, Barry


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Garnier, Edward


Clwyd, Ann
George, Andrew (St lves)


Coaker, Vernon
Gerrard, Neil


Coffey, Ms Ann
Gibb, Nick


Cohen, Harry
Gibson, Dr lan


Coleman, Iain
Gidley, Sandra


Colman, Tony
Gill, Christopher


Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)
Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Cooper, Yvette
Godsiff, Roger


Corbett, Robin
Goggins, Paul


Corbyn, Jeremy
Golding, Mrs Llin


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Gordon, Mrs Eileen


Cotter, Brian
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Cousins, Jim
Gray, James


Cox, Tom
Green, Damian


Cran, James
Greenway, John


Cranston, Ross
Grieve, Dominic


Crausby, David
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)


Cummings, John
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Grogan, John


Curry, Rt Hon David
Hague, Rt Hon William


Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire
Hain, Peter


Dalyell, Tarn
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Darling, Rt Hon Alistair
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Darvill, Keith
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Hammond, Philip


Davidson, Ian
Hancock, Mike


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Hanson, David


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
Harris, Dr Evan


Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)
Hawkins, Nick



Hayes, John


Dawson, Hilton
Heald, Oliver


Day, Stephen
Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)


Dean, Mrs Janet
Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David


Denham, John
Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)



Dismore, Andrew
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)


Dobbin, Jim
Hendrick, Mark


Dobson, Rt Hon Frank
Heppell, John


Donohoe, Brian H
Hesford, Stephen


Doran, Frank
Hinchliffe, David


Dowd, Jim
Hoey, Kate


Drew, David
Hood, Jimmy


Drown, Ms Julia
Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Duncan, Alan
Hope, Phil


Duncan Smith, Iain
Hopkins, Kelvin


Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
Horam, John


Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Edwards, Huw
Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)


Efford, Clive
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Ellman, Mrs Louise
Howells, Dr Kim


Etherington, Bill
Hoyle, Lindsay


Evans, Nigel
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)


Faber, David
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Fabricant, Michael
Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)


Fallon, Michael
Humble, Mrs Joan


Fearn, Ronnie
Hurst, Alan


Field, Rt Hon Frank
Iddon, Dr Brian


Fisher, Mark
Ingram, Rt Hon Adam


Rtzpatrick, Jim
Jack, Rt Hon Michael


Right, Howard
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)


Rint, Caroline
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Rynn, Paul
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Follett, Barbara
Jamieson, David


Foster, Don (Bath)
Jenkin, Bernard


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
Jenkins, Brian


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)


Foulkes, George



Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)


Fox, Dr Liam
Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)


Fraser, Christopher
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Fyfe, Maria
Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)


Gale, Roger



Gapes, Mike
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)





Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
May, Mrs Theresa


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Meale, Alan


Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa
Merron, Gillian


Joyce, Eric
Michael, Rt Hon Alun


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Milburn, Rt Hon Alan


Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)
Miller, Andrew


Keetch, Paul
Mitchell, Austin


Kelly, Ms Ruth
Moore, Michael


Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness W)
Moran, Ms Margaret



Morley, Elliot


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Key, Robert



Khabra, Piara S
Moss, Malcolm


Kidney, David
Mountford, Kali


Kilfoyle, Peter
Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie


King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Mudie, George


King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)
Mullin, Chris


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


Kingham, Ms Tess
Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)


Kirkbride, Miss Julie
Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)


Kirkwood, Archy
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Kumar, Dr Ashok
Norman, Archie


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Norris, Dan


Laing, Mrs Eleanor
Oaten, Mark


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Lansley, Andrew
O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)


Lawrence, Mrs Jackie
O'Hara, Eddie


Laxton, Bob
Olner, Bill


Lepper, David
O'Neill, Martin


Leslie, Christopher
Öpik, Lembit


Letwin, Oliver
Organ, Mrs Diana


Levitt, Tom
Osborne, Ms Sandra


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Ottaway, Richard


Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)
Page, Richard


Lewis, Terry (Worsley)
Paice, James


Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen
Paterson, Owen


Lidington, David
Pearson, Ian


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Perham, Ms Linda


Linton, Martin
Pickles, Eric


Livsey, Richard
Pickthall, Colin


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Pike, Peter L


Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Plaskitt, James


Llwyd, Elfyn
Pond, Chris


Lock, David
Pope, Greg


Loughton, Tim
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Love, Andrew
Pound, Stephen


Luff, Peter
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Prescott, Rt Hon John


McAvoy, Thomas
Primarolo, Dawn


McCabe, Steve
Prior, David


McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)
Prosser, Gwyn



Purchase, Ken


McDonagh, Siobhain
Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce


McDonnell, John
Quinn, Lawrie


McGrady, Eddie
Randall, John


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Rapson, Syd


McGuire, Mrs Anne
Raynsford, Nick


McIntosh, Miss Anne
Redwood, Rt Hon John


McIsaac, Shona
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)


MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew
Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)


Mackinlay, Andrew
Rendel, David


Maclean, Rt Hon David
Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)


McLoughlin, Patrick



McNulty, Tony
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)


MacShane, Denis
Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)


Mactaggart, Fiona
Roche, Mrs Barbara


McWalter, Tony
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxboume)


McWilliam, John
Rogers, Allan


Malins, Humfrey
Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff


Mallaber, Judy
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Maples, John
Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)


Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Ruane, Chris


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Ruddock, Joan


Mates, Michael
Ruffley, David


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian
Ryan, Ms Joan






Salter, Martin
Spicer, Sir Michael


Sanders, Adrian
Spring, Richard


Sarwar, Mohammad
Squire, Ms Rachel


Savidge, Malcolm
Steinberg, Gerry


Sawford, Phil
Stevenson, George


Sayeed, Jonathan
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Sedgemore, Brian
Stinchcombe, Paul


Shaw, Jonathan
Stoate, Dr Howard


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian
Straw, Rt Hon Jack


Shepherd, Richard
Streeter, Gary


Shipley, Ms Debra
Stringer, Graham


Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Singh, Marsha
Swayne, Desmond


Skinner, Dennis
Syms, Robert


Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)




Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)
Taylor, David (NW Leics)



Taylor, Ian (Esher& Walton)


Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)
Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strangford)


Smith, John (Glamorgan)
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Smith, Sir Robert (WAb'dns)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Soames, Nicholas
Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)


Soley, Clive
Thompson, William


Southworth, Ms Helen
Timms, Stephen


Spellar, John
Tipping, Paddy


Spelman, Mrs Caroline
Todd, Mark






Tonge, Dr Jenny
Watts, David


Touhig, Don
Welsh, Andrew


Tredinnick, David
White, Brian


Trend, Michael
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Trimble, Rt Hon David
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Truswell, Paul
Whittingdale, John


Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)
Wicks, Malcolm



Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)
Wilkinson, John


Turner, Neil (Wigan)
Willetts, David


Twigg, Derek (Halton)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)



Tynan, Bill
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Tyrie, Andrew
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Vaz, Keith
Winnick, David


Viggers, Peter
Woodward, Shaun


Vis, Dr Rudi
Woolas, Phil


Walley, Ms Joan
Worthington, Tony


Walter, Robert
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Ward, Ms Claire
Wright, Tony (Cannock)


Wardle, Charles
Wyatt, Derek


Wareing, Robert N
Yeo,Tim


Waterson, Nigel
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


NOES


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas



Wells, Bowen

Question accordingly agreed to.